Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:16 UTC, submitted by chully
Gnome Over the weekend, there has been a bit of a ruffling of the feathers over in the GNOME camp. It started with complaints received about the content on Planet GNOME, and ended with people proposing and organising a vote to split GNOME from the GNU Project.
Order by: Score:
Survey Results
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:30 UTC
YEPHENAS
Member since:
2008-07-14

According to the survey results 95% are against "Advertising a proprietary software product" and only 27% against "Mentioning a proprietary software product favorably". The question is: does Icaza's blog entry count as advertisement or as favorably mentioning?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Survey Results
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:35 UTC in reply to "Survey Results"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That question is slightly misleading - or at least, the presentation of its results are. It was a checkbox question, where you could opt for multiple options at once. However, I disagreed with all of them, and didn't check any of the boxes. This gets registered as a "skipped", and dropped from the results, which is incorrect. There were a lot of people like me: 236.

The proper numbers would be this: 567 total respondents, of which 315 checked that box. Meaning: only 55% agreed with it, not 95.

Reply Score: 10

RE: Survey Results
by google_ninja on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:53 UTC in reply to "Survey Results"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

He was definitely excited about it, but I think it was a genuine excitement as in "We will totally be able to do cool things with this" rather then "Hey guys, you should be using this for everything you do". As an implementor, I think he should be allowed to talk about the things he is implementing, and the only reason for backlash is that he happens to be implementing an MS platform.
(small disclaimer, I think silverlight is retarded, and the only reason it hasn't gone away yet is because microsoft doesn't need it to be successful to keep throwing money at)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Survey Results
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Survey Results"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

I have nothing against Mono. But how much of a Gnome developer is he nowadays? Of course, he is one of the founders of the project and contributed a lot in the past. But in my eyes he is more of a Mono developer than a Gnome developer nowadays. He does not develop for the Gnome platform anymore, he even doesn't stand behind Gtk# any longer according to his blog post and he appeals for development of non-Gnome applications that don't share anything with the Gnome software stack, for a technology (Silverlight) that is not even covered by the ECMA standards. So I wonder if Panet Gnome is the right blog aggregator for his blog. The Mono project has its own blog planet.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Survey Results
by google_ninja on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Survey Results"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Moonlight has a Gtk# dependency, so I would assume that a SL4 port would continue using it. He also will talk about other projects he has a foot in sometimes, like GNUmeric and Evo. That being said, he main focus lately has been mono, and maybe he should move over there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Survey Results
by Luminair on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Survey Results"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

the guy implicitly believes that this mono stuff is the future of the gnome gui. I thought that was pretty clear, but maybe I'm too high level

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Survey Results
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Survey Results"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

the guy implicitly believes that this mono stuff is the future of the gnome gui. I thought that was pretty clear, but maybe I'm too high level


That might be the case, but don't confuse Miguel's view as being representative of the Gnome community. I'm sure he'd be the first to acknowledge that his opinions are his own.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Survey Results
by moondevil on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Survey Results"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Miguel has always tried to bring into Unix the way Microsoft tools work.

- Bonobo is COM for Unix, based on CORBA;
- Evolution started as an Outlook clone;
- Then he started pushing for Mono.

Somehow I think he tries to compensate for the fact that he was turned down on a Microsoft job interview.

Nowadays I don't have anything personall against .Net, but Mono will never be a 100% proper implementation of the ful API.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Survey Results
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Survey Results"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

Miguel has always tried to bring into Unix the way Microsoft tools work.

- Bonobo is COM for Unix, based on CORBA;
- Evolution started as an Outlook clone;
- Then he started pushing for Mono.


Norton Commander (the template of Midnight Commander) was not a Microsoft tool.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Survey Results
by kaiwai on Tue 15th Dec 2009 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Survey Results"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Miguel has always tried to bring into Unix the way Microsoft tools work.

- Bonobo is COM for Unix, based on CORBA;
- Evolution started as an Outlook clone;
- Then he started pushing for Mono.

Somehow I think he tries to compensate for the fact that he was turned down on a Microsoft job interview.

Nowadays I don't have anything personall against .Net, but Mono will never be a 100% proper implementation of the ful API.


The irony of the whole exercise; Bonobo is being removed, Evolution is dead in the water as libcanvas is removed from GNOME but nothing has been done to fix the dependency issue - much talk about libfoocanvas but nothing done. Then there is mono - great idea, too bad all the parts that make cross platformness possible are patented up the wazoo by Microsoft, so all you have left which isn't patented are a small number of things no one outside the *NIX would would be interested in.

I sometimes wonder why they even moved to the idea of Outlook when distinctive applications that work together would be an alot better solution; Balsa for email, and create stand alone address book, calender etc. Why didn't they go that route? I don't think that Miguel has bad motives, I just think he has been put into positions that are undeserved and based on hype rather than what you really need in those positions - ruthless pragmatists who know when it is a good idea is rather than blindly following the market leader assuming they're the market leader because of a superior design/implementation.

Edited 2009-12-15 11:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Survey Results
by Finalzone on Tue 15th Dec 2009 06:08 UTC in reply to "Survey Results"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06
RE[2]: Survey Results
by Kishe on Tue 15th Dec 2009 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Survey Results"
Kishe Member since:
2006-02-16

I like it how the blogger compares talking about using proprietary software in to posting racist propaganda or porn.

Reply Score: 1

*facepalms* in Stallmans general direction
by Laurence on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:40 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Richard Stallman's idiotic outbursts does more damage for the publicity of FSF (et al) than anything on Planet GNOME; so maybe we should have a vote to have his name disassociated from future GNU discussion?

Reply Score: 9

SamAskani Member since:
2006-01-03

I second this motion, Richard just makes appear FSF as a joke not serious enough to be considered for anything.

Edit: typo

Edited 2009-12-14 15:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

I second this motion, Richard just makes appear FSF as a joke not serious enough to be considered for anything.

Edit: typo


I have no problem as long as the software remains GPL.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I think most level headed people have jumped to the open source side of the fence by now.

Reply Score: 1

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

No, they work for FSF-europe and support FSF-europe.

Richard may suck, but free software is the superior concept.

Reply Score: 4

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

My Linux desktop blows everything you have out of the water for what _I_ am doing with it ;)

And Linux basically runs most of the internet PERIOD
That alone, even if it were successful nowhere else, makes it a huge success(along with Bind, Apache, sendmail, etc.)

Reply Score: 4

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

I used to think the same until I started using Windows again and realized how nice it is to have software the works, looks decent and actually does useful things. Featurewise, there's no comparison between GNOME/KDE and Windows 7. The latter have barely succeeded in replicating the functionality of Windows 98 or 2000, let alone the latest versions of Windows. Polish is lacking. And we're always left waiting, hoping that the next version of X or KDE will finally be usable. It never is. I got tired of waiting and I think others will feel the same.

Reply Score: 2

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

You didn't read what I wrote. I use Windows/OSX/Unix, but for what _I_ want Linux is _by_far_ the best desktop OS. It may not be for you, but I don't really care.

Reply Score: 5

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

You want to waste time fixing broken configs, trying to get hardware to work and not being able to use non-RMS-sanctioned software? Seriously, just install cygwin and then you can have all your unixy goodness on an operating system that actually works. Better yet, use OS X where most Unix stuff works without installing something like cygwin. There's really no reason to use Linux as a desktop OS at this point. There's nothing it can do that other OSes can't do and can't do better (often much much better). If you can give me a good example (and not something like scrollbars act different), I'll concede the point.

Reply Score: 2

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Featurewise, there's no comparison between GNOME/KDE and Windows 7. The latter have barely succeeded in replicating the functionality of Windows 98 or 2000

So Windows 7 (which is the latter) has the functionality of Windows 98?

I don't know what you are talking about, but if you mean that GNOME and KDE don't have the feature set of Windows, then I have to disagree.
I actually have a dual boot setup with Linux (with KDE 4.3.4) and Windows.

Windows:
* Almost no flexibility in configuration options.
* Ani-malware tools are a requirement.
* Half my hardware needs drivers that have to be downloaded first.
* No decent window management.
* No consistency among applications (menu bar below toolbar here, menu bar above toolbar there, ribbon somewhere else)
* No centralized way to update all software at once.
* Clumsy default file manager.

KDE/Linux:
* Hardware works out of the box.
* Major leaps in functionality every six months.
* All my software updates with only 3 clicks.
* Powerful, yet easy to use file manager (Dolphin)
* Great configurability, incl. the ability to have different Folder Views on one desktop.
* Out of the box support for Cisco VPNs and an unobtrusive GUI for it (NetworkManager).
* Awesome image/document viewers (Gwenview, Okular)
* Great multi-protocol chat client installed by default (Kopete).
* Great window manager that has small, but useful features like snap window to edge since many years.
* ...

I've also used Mac OS X for many years. Even Mac OS X 10.3 is still better than recent Windows versions.

Reply Score: 5

wargum Member since:
2006-12-15


Windows:
* Almost no flexibility in configuration options.

If you are referring to GUI configuration, yes. But that sure has it advantages: Everybody who has used Windows since version 95 can use the next person's Windows as well. No confusion, just start working.

* Ani-malware tools are a requirement.

I disagree. The noobs may need it, companies may need it. Advanced users and power users don't necessarily need it, brain.exe should be sufficent.

* Half my hardware needs drivers that have to be downloaded first.

Get past the XP days, please. Today, in most cases Windows 7 just detects everything and loads the drivers needed via Windows Update.

* No decent window management.

IMHO that is true for pre W7, but Microsoft has done significant improvements in that area for 7 and I like it a lot. My girlfriend is now fully on Windows 7 and trust me, the new taskbar works far better. And one feature that KDE now copies from W7 is very cool: Drag window to a side and it spans to half of the screen width. She uses that quite often, it's very very handy and easy to understand.

* No consistency among applications (menu bar below toolbar here, menu bar above toolbar there, ribbon somewhere else)


Well, Linux is only consistent among apps if you use a small set of poster child apps. My favorite jukebox on Linux is Songbird, it looks totally different to anything else.

KDE/Linux:
* Hardware works out of the box.


Only as long as it decides not to work ;-)
That sure is an argument easily destroyed. If the Kernel version of yours doesn't support a particular component, you are pretty much screwed. And look at different Linux forums, people do have problems and things may break when switching to a newer version of your distribution.

* Major leaps in functionality every six months.


A lot of it is just catch up. You may give some examples.

I've also used Mac OS X for many years. Even Mac OS X 10.3 is still better than recent Windows versions.


Panther was my reason to switch to the Mac. But again, W7 has made huge improvements in usuability, the old thinking doesn't apply here.

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What functionality are you referring to?

What do you mean by "usable"? My definition would be " able to be used". But I think you are referring to some lack of functionality. It would be nice to either specifically reference the things you miss.

I'm with the other guy. Linux works better for me. Even desktop wise.

Reply Score: 2

marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

Great man, so how do you replace windows WM with DWM? And windows userland with BSD? And custom installation procedures with portmaster or something? Do I get packet filtering, file and application servers, video transcoding, 3D editing, mathematical, financial software and developement tools on the same DVD nowdays? What about drivers?

I'd like to be a full Microsoft Windows user too! My mother would like that!

We don't need Richard Stallman now, we can steal what he did in the past, give credit to Microsoft and live happily everafter! All of us!

Reply Score: 1

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Great man, so how do you replace windows WM with DWM? And windows userland with BSD? And custom installation procedures with portmaster or something? Do I get packet filtering, file and application servers, video transcoding, 3D editing, mathematical, financial software and developement tools on the same DVD nowdays? What about drivers?

Windows comes with the drivers you need, or they are installed by the OEMs, or they come with the hardware (which can't be said for Linux drivers, where only the first is true). There are ALWAYS drivers for Windows, and there are generally drivers for Linux, but often well after a product has been released and they may never be fully functional. Video card drivers are notorious about this. As for the rest, yes you get file and application servers and packet filtering. The more advanced productivity software you have to pay for (what a concept!) but you can often download that directly from Microsoft and then pay for it and guess what...it's generally leaps and bounds ahead of bugridden crap like OpenOffice and Octave. Of course, almost any software that runs on Linux can also run on Windows, so if you really need some piece of Linux software, you don't need Linux to use it. The first three sentences point out things that really aren't needed, but could be done anyways. You can use alternate shells in Windows and you are free to make one. They used to do that for XP (LiteStep for example). And you can always run an X server if you are a masochist and need that 1995 look and feel (and performance). There's no value in a Windows userland with BSD, and only a tiny handful of people bother with that kind of thing even in the open source world. And you can install Windows software any way you want to. It has a package manager, but you are free to use your own system. Cygwin has its own custom system. It's not a problem with Windows. In fact, I'm not even sure that complaint even makes sense.

I'd like to be a full Microsoft Windows user too! My mother would like that!

There's nothing wrong with OSS except that there are only a few shining beacons amidst a sea of crap. And OSS for a desktop is a miserable, miserable failure. It's great in the server room. I wouldn't use Windows for servers or even a fileserver/backend setup. Linux/*BSD does that better.

We don't need Richard Stallman now, we can steal what he did in the past, give credit to Microsoft and live happily everafter! All of us!

Most folks in the OSS world think Richard is at best a has-been. I don't even know why you are bringing him up in this fashion. There's no stealing of what he did in the past. There's no giving of credit to Microsoft for his work (only giving of credit to them for actually producing useful and quality software -- btw, this isn't 1995; Microsoft software is of very good quality today and the Open Source world generally hasn't provided much in the way of real competition for the cash cows of Office, Windows, etc.). I'd rather that people realize that Linux on the desktop isn't going to happen and probably can't due to the development model and that the idea of pure free software is antithetical to actually producing good software. Open source as a means by which companies and universities, etc. can collaborate (with community involvement as well) on software more openly seems to work best. We've seen it time and time again. Of course, it can only work for individual products. Producing an entire desktop stack that way has not worked out and honestly, nobody cares outside of a few enthusiasts and Canonical. They've had 15 years to produce a usable desktop and the market share still sits at 1% or less. Failure. There is no other word for it but failure.

Reply Score: 2

atriq Member since:
2007-10-18

"...I started using Windows again and realized how nice it is to have software the works..."

This implies that you're saying the OSS options don't work. Now I have to ask, do you mean that? If so, let's consider the options *pulls out a razor owned by a guy named William*:

Scenario 1:
OSS doesn't work; it just an elaborate, international hoax, complete with hundreds of thousands of conspirators creating the illusion of functionality across the many websites, forums, ircs, meetups, the various government/public/private institutions that have declared switching to the platform.

Scenario 2:
You couldn't figure out how to set up your system to your liking. And the undertaking, much like an English native trying to learn Dutch, left you doubting that it actually does work. (credits to Jimmy Carr on that one)

For some reason I'm gravitating toward the latter as the more reasonable explanation.

Reply Score: 1

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

"...I started using Windows again and realized how nice it is to have software the works..."

This implies that you're saying the OSS options don't work. Now I have to ask, do you mean that? If so, let's consider the options *pulls out a razor owned by a guy named William*:

Scenario 1:
OSS doesn't work; it just an elaborate, international hoax, complete with hundreds of thousands of conspirators creating the illusion of functionality across the many websites, forums, ircs, meetups, the various government/public/private institutions that have declared switching to the platform.

I wouldn't call it a hoax. I believe that OSS developers are serious about what they do and they do try to deliver the best software they can. The model is successful in some cases (Apache, PHP, Perl, Eclipse, PostgreSQL, GCC, KDE before 4, Linux Kernel, etc.) I argue that it's not enough, however, to be competitive these days, mostly on the desktop. Server room is still great for OSS and Unix as web stats and supercomputer stats show.

Scenario 2:
You couldn't figure out how to set up your system to your liking. And the undertaking, much like an English native trying to learn Dutch, left you doubting that it actually does work. (credits to Jimmy Carr on that one)

For some reason I'm gravitating toward the latter as the more reasonable explanation.

I'm not one of those kids who hears that Windows sucks and slaps on Ubuntu and complains that World of Worldcraft doesn't work. I started with Linux in 2004 with Fedora Core 1. Since then, I've used Fedora, Mandrake (back when it was Mandrake), SuSE, Ubuntu and Gentoo, which was what I used for the most part from mid-2005 to the present. I've helped administer Linux servers. I've written Linux software (for personal use), including, for fun, a terminal-based windowing system. I ran X.org from Git and fixed all the show-stopper problems manually or worked with the devs to get them fixed. So I am not some Linux n00b who couldn't figure out how to change the desktop background. I customized extensively. I know what I'm doing.

But there are limits. I can't make OpenOffice not suck. I can't make Linux have a sane driver API. I can't make KWin (KDE 4) perform better when the main devs are convinced the problem is just my drivers (even though compiz, xcompmgr, etc. all perform fine with the same drivers and settings). I can't make the X devs come up with a sane architecture and actually implement it. Even if I became an X dev, they still need many more than just one. Believe me, I configured and configured with great regularity, tried bleeding edge versions of software just to get features that one would expect. But it's just not enough and I've come to see the dysfunction in the open source community. It simply is not a model that can produce software of the quality you often get from Microsoft, Apple, etc. Are those companies perfect? Not by far. But they have the resources and the discipline to produce software that *works* and gets things done. And for those few things were open source has produced good software, I can use that on Windows or OS X.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I think most level headed people have jumped to the open source side of the fence by now.

I would say that most level headed people either question the significance of the FS/OSS "divide" or consider themselves to be members of both "camps" to varying degrees. Remember that the FS/OSS "schism" is an artificial construct created by Stallman for his own personal political purposes.

Reply Score: 5

elanthis Member since:
2007-02-17

Nonsense. I'm totally in favor of Open Source and think that the true Free Software movement (and its end goals) is actively harmful to computers and technology overall. Too much software will never, ever, ever be developed in a Free or Open manner for a variety of reasons, and to attempt to shut down development of that software because it's "unethical" is crazy. I hope the next time RMS or another Free Software zealot gets sick that they refuse any and all medical treatment to make a statement about how unethical it is to use Closed software to save lives... at least that'll thin out some of the stupid in the gene pool.

RMS doesn't get it. He gets to live his idiotic ass off of grant money for years on end. If he has a dogmatic issue with a piece of technology, he gets someone else to use it for him. (Example: read some of his recent mailing list posts where he refuses to use SSL or access documents on HTTPS URLs. So if someone wants him to read content there, he has someone else download it and email it to him. That's the kind of bullshit normal people don't have the time for, and nobody with their head anywhere other than their ass can find far better things to do with their time even if they do have enough of it.) He can live in a different reality and he's completely out of touch with what real, day-to-day computer users want, care about, or need out of computers, and he's lost touch with what the impact of proprietary software and Free Software really is.

Reply Score: 10

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Nonsense. I'm totally in favor of Open Source and think that the true Free Software movement (and its end goals) is actively harmful to computers and technology overall.

I tend to view the artificial distinction which RMS draws between members of what is essentially the same community, supporting pretty much the same code base, as involving axes of thought which are orthogonal.

One can feel that FOSS results in *better* software. One can feel that FOSS *can* result in better software. One can feel that FOSS is a moral imperative. Or one can feel that contributing to FOSS is simply a good thing to do when you can.

And I think that we need to be very careful to distinguish between where one happens to reside in that coordinate system... and simple fanaticism, which is a different thing.

Richard has confused the issue by comparing x and y coordinate values so often that people have come to accept it as a reasonable practice.

RMS is not evil because he believes that FOSS is a good thing. He is evil because he feels so strongly that FS is a moral imperative (Or is so obsessed with his own political ambitions. Or both. Not sure.) that he is willing to divide the community by means of what I will term here a "charismatic deception".

He's evil because he's a fanatic.

Edited 2009-12-14 19:22 UTC

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

/agree

Reply Score: 2

Lanadapter Member since:
2009-10-01

So doing what you believe is morally right is evil?

Lol wut

Edited 2009-12-15 03:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

No, but being a fundamentalist easily gets out of hand. The free software movement has lots of attributes of a religion, including a prophet, commandments and holy texts. So fundamental free software advocates renounce reality and facts if they don't fit their belief system.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No, but being a fundamentalist easily gets out of hand. The free software movement has lots of attributes of a religion, including a prophet, commandments and holy texts. So fundamental free software advocates renounce reality and facts if they don't fit their belief system.


People having a fundamentalist belief system about software does indeed get out of hand.

The following false beliefs being spread by religious OS fundamentalists are particularly hard to disperse:

* The GPL is viral
* Linux would be just as insecure as Windows if most people used it
* Linux is hard to use
* Codecs are illegal on Linux
* Installing software for Linux means having to compile it
* Free Software means zero cost, and that is what it is worth
* Linux applications can't do what Windows applications can do
* There is no guarantee with Free Software

The last belief is actually true, but it is also just as true with proprietary software.

Reply Score: 5

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"charismatic deception"


RMS is charismatic?

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Nonsense. I'm totally in favor of Open Source and think that the true Free Software movement (and its end goals) is actively harmful to computers and technology overall. Too much software will never, ever, ever be developed in a Free or Open manner for a variety of reasons, and to attempt to shut down development of that software because it's "unethical" is crazy.


You don't get it. RMS is not now nor has he ever (to my knowledge, cite it if you've got it) suggested shutting down the development of any proprietary software.

What RMS wants is a world in which all software is developed as Free software. He wants to get there by all parties to voluntarily cease making non-Free software and relicense it as Free. If there is some useful non-Free software out there RMS is not above advocating that a Free clone be written. This does not shut down the original. If the original is eventually abandoned it will be purely on the merit of the Free clone. If the original is never abandoned... RMS will still advocate that its license should be changed.

There is nothing harmful in advocating that all software be Free software. No one is suggesting that anyone be *prevented* from writing non-Free software or coerced in to not developing proprietary software. That is not to say that it should be made easy to do!

RMS is a noble crusader who has taken the hard-line stance on his issue. I fully support what he and the FSF stand for, but I don't tack that closely to the line. I'm typing this with Chrome, I'm using the nvidia driver for my video card, I've got commercial games installed. But, I think it is important that there by hard liners out there pushing in the direction I want to go; that makes it easier for me to go that way myself.

Reply Score: 7

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

RMS has his moments and a lot can be said about him, but inconsistency shouldnt be one of them .. this latest round of bickering was cause by somebody complaining about mr, Icaza's blog about silverlight and how fantastic it was and how people can write GUI cross platform application with it and bla bla bla ..read for yourself what he wrote: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Nov-23.html

some people including RMS said it was inappropriate for project under GNU to show such enthusiasm with proprietary programs and somebody(not RMS) complained about it

This rift is the latest in the long rifts caused by people moving away from the fundamentals that brought up the whole thing in the first place and most of those who get irritated by RMS are those who would wish to incorporate proprietary code in FOSS code ..


mr icaza sounds like a 15 year old girl with a crush the size of a planet when talking about anything microsoft ... only the gods knows how far he will go if left unchecked .. free software view maybe annoying to sum, but are what keep the like of icaza from falling off the cliff

he is not a traitor, he is an embarrassment

Reply Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

but inconsistency shouldnt be one of them


That's exactly the problem.

A great leader IS inconsistent. A good politician IS inconsistent. A great scientist IS inconsistent.

It's called learning, adapting, working under new and different circumstances. This is what RMS and the FSF should be doing: adapting to new circumstances, new realities. Dare to be inconsistent - a fear of inconsistency is a recipe for stagnation.

Reply Score: 6

sorbus Member since:
2009-12-11

That's exactly the problem.

A great leader IS inconsistent. A good politician IS inconsistent. A great scientist IS inconsistent.


This makes no sense. You're just inventing your own definition of consistency, unless you think that contradiction == adaptation.

It's called learning, adapting, working under new and different circumstances. This is what RMS and the FSF should be doing: adapting to new circumstances, new realities. Dare to be inconsistent - a fear of inconsistency is a recipe for stagnation.


The FSF (and RMS) would not have achieved so much over the years if they had refused to "adapt". Your comment reflects your own personal negative opinions of them, and not the reality of what they do.

Basically what you're saying in the article is: "I use your software now, so you should give up the ideals (which I don't understand or share) that led you and others to create it in the first place, for my convenience".

Reply Score: 10

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This makes no sense. You're just inventing your own definition of consistency, unless you think that contradiction == adaptation.


You clearly misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

A lot of people have this perception that leaders NEED to be consistent AT ALL COSTS. That consistency in and of itself is a redeeming quality that BY DEFINITION makes you a good leader.

This is absolute bogus. Consistency makes you bad leader. A good leader adapts, dare to admits his mistakes, dares to change policies based on the ever-changing nature of the world around him. A good leader is not set in his convictions, he bases his convictions on the world around him.

That's why even the biggest Christian party in The Netherlands supports gay marriage, euthanasia, and abortion: because Dutch society deems these things important, valuable, and a sign of progress, freedom, and civility.

Have you ever wondered why churches are running low on visitors in Western Europe? It's because many church leaders refuse to adapt their convictions to the changing world around them. The FSF will go down the same route if it continues this way.

In summation: changing one's convictions and principles based on the changing nature of the world is a GOOD thing. Radically holding one to one's convictions in spite of the ever-changing world is a BAD thing - no matter how well these convictions may have served you in the past.

Reply Score: 3

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

Thom,
fundamentals need to be consistent

a politician can be consistent on trying to improve the lives of the society and may change sides on how to best do that .. his fundamental position is improving the life of the society and can afford to "adopt" to present conditions to attain his goal

a scientist may be consistent in seeking the truth but may change sides on what is currently believed to be the truth or how to best seek it ..this scientist is fundamentally after the truth and knowledge on how the world works and can afford to "adopt" in a quest to achieve his goal

fundamentals need to be consistent .. and any leader need to be consistent on what they fundamentally believe in before they can get any credibility

RMS fundamentally believe in his 4 principles ..his positions has changed on how to best attain those fundamentals ..GNU wanted an operating system and accepted linux because it was better than their own is an example of them adopting to circumstances

Reply Score: 6

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

GNU wanted an operating system and accepted linux because it was better than their own is an example of them adopting to circumstances


That is a laugh. They accepted linux because after 20 years of trying, they still don't have a usable kernel.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

If you make your principals general enough, then there is no need to change them. That is correct. But the analogy of " trying to improve the lives of the society" is not " all software should be FOSS". It would be more like " Software should benefit provide the most people possible". Or if you wanted something that was a political version of RMS it would be "Low Taxes is the best tool to improve the lives of society".

I would argue that such a policy of Low taxes, needs to be changed depending upon the circumstances. And there may also be cases where GPL'd FOSS may not be the best choice.

Reply Score: 2

sorbus Member since:
2009-12-11

[q]This makes no sense. You're just inventing your own definition of consistency, unless you think that contradiction == adaptation.

You clearly misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

A lot of people have this perception that leaders NEED to be consistent AT ALL COSTS. That consistency in and of itself is a redeeming quality that BY DEFINITION makes you a good leader.

This is absolute bogus. Consistency makes you bad leader. A good leader adapts, dare to admits his mistakes, dares to change policies based on the ever-changing nature of the world around him. A good leader is not set in his convictions, he bases his convictions on the world around him.


Riiiiight. To quote Groucho Marx: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others". Unfortunately, he was a comedian and you're being serious.

This is what happens in politics, where the only real principle is "I'll do or say anything that fits with the prevailing moods in my society (which sometimes I help manipulate) in order to stay in power".

That's why even the biggest Christian party in The Netherlands supports gay marriage, euthanasia, and abortion: because Dutch society deems these things important, valuable, and a sign of progress, freedom, and civility.


That's all well and good Thom, and I'm glad to hear it. Given the self-proclaimed strength of your principles, I suppose that if 20 years down the road Dutch society starts thinking that all these things are now uncivilised again, that will be A-OK with you.

Have you ever wondered why churches are running low on visitors in Western Europe? It's because many church leaders refuse to adapt their convictions to the changing world around them. The FSF will go down the same route if it continues this way.


This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. Free Software is not a religion, it is only called that by its detractors. Oh, and while we're at it, its "tenets" are not demonstrably false.

In summation: changing one's convictions and principles based on the changing nature of the world is a GOOD thing. Radically holding one to one's convictions in spite of the ever-changing world is a BAD thing - no matter how well these convictions may have served you in the past.


What you're describing is a good way to be absolutely feckless, with little hope of affecting any change unless you happen to jump on the right bandwagon.

Holding someone to their self-proclaimed convictions is radical? I'm sorry, but you keep throwing logical fallacies after non-sequiturs after etymological fallacies at me, and I have no desire to dissect them all.

It's OK for you to only be temporarily principled, i.e., basically unprincipled, whatever. However, in your last and earlier posts you're conflating politics, leadership and science, at the very least. Some ideas for you:

"Great leaders" have followers because they stick to their ideals, come what may (where said ideals are not "anything, so long as I'm the leader").

The FSF has always stood for software freedom and the proliferation of free software (both as defined by them).

Scientists do have one uncompromising principle, also known as search for the truth. Falsification of flawed theories and subsequent reassessment of one's understanding of how things work is the whole point of science.

Reply Score: 5

Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

One of the few good things that can be said about RMS is that he sticks to his morals. He believes that proprietary software is immoral/evil and sticks to it. The problem is that not only do most people not agree with him, but many who support his own movement don't: hence the divide between OSS and Free Software.

It is a great thing for a leader to adapt and change when he makes mistakes, but backing off on what they believe to be morally correct is just plain bad. I, for one, think that it's incredibly sad when churches change their views just because the general populace don't agree with them. Morality doesn't change just because people want it to.

I see nothing wrong with RMS believing that proprietary software is immoral, much as I disagree with him. The problem is that he imposes his beliefs on others. He's not like a humble missionary trying to convert people to his god. He's more like a crusader trying to cut down everyone who disagrees.

So, in principle, I agree that leaders need to adapt, but not on morality, not unless they can truly be converted. The issue here is how he treats those who disagree. His lack of tolerance is the problem. It's okay to believe differently, but it's not okay to persecute others because of it.

Reply Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I mostly agree with you, except...

The problem is that he imposes his beliefs on others. He's not like a humble missionary trying to convert people to his god. He's more like a crusader trying to cut down everyone who disagrees.

This is not true. First of all, I have yet to see him do anything more than ask that people adopt his views. One recent example was a post to the LKML concerning some issue with the kernel. He doesn't have the power to insist and didn't throw any kind of a tantrum. Instead he stated his position, clarified when asked and allowed people to do whatever they liked.

In this way he *is* like the humble missionary who advocates but does not pressure.

I see a lot of complaint about RMS' behavior, but I have yet to see a single instance of his behavior that was actually objectionable. He sometimes sticks his nose in when he isn't asked, true, but this not frequent and not unreasonable. Inevitably it happens when there is some issue that is not being addressed, in which case I think raising it is a public service.

In contrast I find certain Linux and BSD developers to be far harsher in language and attitude, but they're rarely criticized for it. Perhaps it is because they're only talking about concrete things, like code.

I think one's opinion of RMS says a lot more about oneself than RMS.

Reply Score: 5

Langalf Member since:
2006-04-25

Wow. So, in your world view, if the majority of a population decides uncontrolled murder is a good thing, we should all go along with that, no matter what our strongly held personal convictions / beliefs / religious values might say to the contrary?

Remind me to stay far, far away from your world.

Edited 2009-12-14 23:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

Was that comment directed at me ??!
I got modded down seriously,
kinda as expected .. :-S

Edited 2009-12-15 21:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

libervisco Member since:
2006-09-01

I think you're missing something here. There are two kinds of consistencies relevant in this context. One is consistency between all your current beliefs and another is consistency between your beliefs as they are today and what your beliefs were at various points in the past.

In the latter case being inconsistent can indeed be a good thing within a specific context. However, advocating this as a good thing in itself is a slippery slope towards advocating complete relativism of truth into a mere reflection of what everybody believes, as if truth didn't exist to begin with (this is actually a post modernist view represented by too much of the philosophical academia and unsurprisingly politicians who are known for their lack of integrity).

The specific context I mean are cases where you genuinely realize that something you believed in was wrong based on new facts you gathered from observation of reality and your own logical thinking. In that case sticking to old beliefs would indeed be very bad and nothing but dishonest pretension, lying to yourself and others simultaneously. In that case changing your beliefs is a must.

But the first kind of inconsistency, the inconsistency within your current thinking paradigm / belief system is something that should not be tolerated in no circumstance because it means you're in conflict with your own self. For a simple example one might believe that Earth was flat and at the same time be convinced that if you travel far enough in the same direction through the world you'll end up back where you started. The latter depends on Earth being round and thus conflicts with the former belief so a person holding both beliefs at the same time is being inconsistent with him/her self and self-contradictory.

As for RMS.. he sure is very consistent when it comes to what he fundamentally believed in the past and what he believes now (as far as I can tell), but unfortunately the content of what he believes is not fundamentally consistent with itself and I'm not talking solely about four freedoms, but the underlying reason why he finds four freedoms to be any kind of a moral code. He doesn't appear to believe in individual person's right to contract given that he considers contracts in which one person agrees to get a particular program conveyed to him/her under the condition that he/she not copy it further, modify etc. as "immoral".

This is ludicrous. I can agree to whatever I want and I can set whatever terms I want before doing something for someone. The key is that neither of us coerce each other to make the deal in the first place.

Yet at the same time he purports to support individual rights and freedom. But freedom essentially IS the right to contract (agreement), the ability to choose your acts and behavior for yourself and if you're subject to any rules, for those rules to be ones you previously *agreed to yourself*.

He is therefore very consistently (in time) holding an inconsistent belief (self-contradictory).

A true leader, however, would appreciate the latter (consistency between *current* beliefs) far more than the former (consistency between past and present beliefs). He would admit when he changes his mind and why and show genuine concern for self-consistency and lack of self-contradiction, that is to say, a genuine love of truth.

That said, there is something unjust about the way software (and other intellectual works for that matter) is handled in today's world, but FSF's "four freedoms" are barking at the wrong tree. The problem is the belief in the impossibility that is the "intellectual property". Fortunately, RMS gives some flak to it, at least terminologically. How far does he understand the underlying concept I'm not sure. When he speaks of IP he only seems to refer to confusing copyrights, patents and trademarks, which is missing the point in my book.

I wrote about why IP is problematic here: http://www.libervis.com/article/intellectual-property-a-violation-o... and here http://www.libervis.com/article/practical-implications-of-rejecting... .

Cheers

Edited 2009-12-15 01:59 UTC

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As for RMS.. he sure is very consistent when it comes to what he fundamentally believed in the past and what he believes now (as far as I can tell), but unfortunately the content of what he believes is not fundamentally consistent with itself and I'm not talking solely about four freedoms, but the underlying reason why he finds four freedoms to be any kind of a moral code. He doesn't appear to believe in individual person's right to contract given that he considers contracts in which one person agrees to get a particular program conveyed to him/her under the condition that he/she not copy it further, modify etc. as "immoral".

This is ludicrous. I can agree to whatever I want and I can set whatever terms I want before doing something for someone. The key is that neither of us coerce each other to make the deal in the first place.


I think you misunderstand entirely.

Free Software is collaboration. Free Software is "I'll scratch your back, and you scratch mine, and we will both get a scratched back". This does not preclude other people going to a professional backscratcher instead, if they prefer.

Stretching the analogy, proprietary software is the petulant child in the corner, shouting: "but I wanted to be the only backscratcher. I want to start a franchise, and to license backscratching! You can't be allowed to scratch each other's back! How dare you, I wanted to charge you money for getting your back scratched. There should be a law against mutual back scratching amongst the community".

Free Software would hold that professional backscratching is in no way immoral, but also that attempts to prevent people from scratching each other's back (if they want to) are indeed immoral.

Edited 2009-12-15 02:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

libervisco Member since:
2006-09-01

I think you misunderstand entirely.

Free Software is collaboration. Free Software is "I'll scratch your back, and you scratch mine, and we will both get a scratched back". This does not preclude other people going to a professional backscratcher instead, if they prefer.

Stretching the analogy, proprietary software is the petulant child in the corner, shouting: "but I wanted to be the only backscratcher. I want to start a franchise, and to license backscratching! You can't be allowed to scratch each other's back! How dare you, I wanted to charge you money for getting your back scratched. There should be a law against mutual back scratching amongst the community".

Free Software would hold that professional backscratching is in no way immoral, but also that attempts to prevent people from scratching each other's back (if they want to) are indeed immoral.


You're talking past me, that is, you didn't show how am I misunderstanding. I didn't make any kind of distinction between "professional back scratchers" and others because they don't matter to the point. The point is that one who wants to scratch backs can ask you to agree to whichever terms he wants before he scratches your back. If you don't agree he wont scratch your back. If you do, he will. That's it.

If some back scratcher wants you to agree that you never scratch anybody else's back the same way he will scratch yours before he does it it's merely a proposed contract. You don't have to agree to it. If you do then you do and that's it. It's your choice. You can call such a contract draconian or ridiculous, but then if you believe it is such don't agree to such contracts, period. But you finding such contracts ridiculous doesn't give you the right to say other people are wrong to consider them otherwise and agree to them themselves.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I think you misunderstand entirely. Free Software is collaboration. Free Software is "I'll scratch your back, and you scratch mine, and we will both get a scratched back". This does not preclude other people going to a professional backscratcher instead, if they prefer. Stretching the analogy, proprietary software is the petulant child in the corner, shouting: "but I wanted to be the only backscratcher. I want to start a franchise, and to license backscratching! You can't be allowed to scratch each other's back! How dare you, I wanted to charge you money for getting your back scratched. There should be a law against mutual back scratching amongst the community". Free Software would hold that professional backscratching is in no way immoral, but also that attempts to prevent people from scratching each other's back (if they want to) are indeed immoral.
You're talking past me, that is, you didn't show how am I misunderstanding. I didn't make any kind of distinction between "professional back scratchers" and others because they don't matter to the point. The point is that one who wants to scratch backs can ask you to agree to whichever terms he wants before he scratches your back. If you don't agree he wont scratch your back. If you do, he will. That's it. If some back scratcher wants you to agree that you never scratch anybody else's back the same way he will scratch yours before he does it it's merely a proposed contract. You don't have to agree to it. If you do then you do and that's it. It's your choice. "

Your scenario hasn't got anything to do with the objections made by proprietary companies about Free Software.

I'll try to explain: you said "If some back scratcher wants you to agree that you never scratch anybody else's back the same way he will scratch yours before he does it it's merely a proposed contract. You don't have to agree to it. If you do then you do and that's it. It's your choice."

I'd agree with you there, but that just isn't the problem. The problem is the professional back scratcher wanting somehow to make it impossible for any other people to scratch each other's back without involving the professional at all.

You can call such a contract draconian or ridiculous,


I didn't do any such thing.

but then if you believe it is such don't agree to such contracts, period.


Agreed. That is exactly what I do do.

But you finding such contracts ridiculous doesn't give you the right to say other people are wrong to consider them otherwise and agree to them themselves.


Right there is your misunderstanding. I don't find such contract ridiculous or immoral.

What I find ridiculous and immoral is a professional trying to insist that ONLY contracts of that type are to be allowed, and that no other backscratching of any kind can be permitted.

Edited 2009-12-15 03:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14


This is ludicrous. I can agree to whatever I want and I can set whatever terms I want before doing something for someone. The key is that neither of us coerce each other to make the deal in the first place.

Yet at the same time he purports to support individual rights and freedom. But freedom essentially IS the right to contract (agreement), the ability to choose your acts and behavior for yourself and if you're subject to any rules, for those rules to be ones you previously *agreed to yourself*.

He is therefore very consistently (in time) holding an inconsistent belief (self-contradictory).

There is a contradiction in your reasoning .. you can not have your cake and eat it too ..

for you to be free, certain freedoms must be taken away from you .. you can not have a right to live your life as you see fit and at the same have a right to sell yourself to slavery if you feel like it because your rights to do as you wish will be void the second you become a slave

to protect your right to be a free person, the ability to sell yourself to slavery must be taken away from you

to protect your right to live, you are denied the right to terminate your own life ..you can sell your kidney if you want, you can cut your nose if you feel like it but you can not terminate your life

you can not simultaneously choose to be bound by an EULA and at the same time have the four freedoms RMS is talking about

RMS message is consistent ..you should have those four fundamental freedoms ..for you have them, somebody else(including you) must not have the freedom to take them away from you by either slapping an EULA to them or adding proprietary code in it or closing it down

Reply Score: 3

libervisco Member since:
2006-09-01


There is a contradiction in your reasoning .. you can not have your cake and eat it too ..

for you to be free, certain freedoms must be taken away from you .. you can not have a right to live your life as you see fit and at the same have a right to sell yourself to slavery if you feel like it because your rights to do as you wish will be void the second you become a slave

to protect your right to be a free person, the ability to sell yourself to slavery must be taken away from you

to protect your right to live, you are denied the right to terminate your own life ..you can sell your kidney if you want, you can cut your nose if you feel like it but you can not terminate your life

you can not simultaneously choose to be bound by an EULA and at the same time have the four freedoms RMS is talking about

RMS message is consistent ..you should have those four fundamental freedoms ..for you have them, somebody else(including you) must not have the freedom to take them away from you by either slapping an EULA to them or adding proprietary code in it or closing it down


Taken literally, yes I can have my cake and eat it too, actually. That might very well be the whole point of me having the cake to begin with: to eat it. Sorry, but it's just a very silly saying. ;)

In any case, you're trying to argue that I have a contradiction in my reasoning yet you say this:

"for you to be free, certain freedoms must be taken away from you .."

I know it's quite popular today to use orwellian concepts, but that doesn't make them any less valid as descriptors of reality. Why Orwellian you ask? Because George Orwell in "1984" described "The Party" and society ordered under it with a slogan: "Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. War is Peace".

That doesn't work (nope, not even the latter "war is peace" no matter how much Obama, the peace nobel prize winner, wanted you to believe it).

Sorry if that sounded like a tangent, but I wanted to put it into perspective because the kind of reasoning you use reflects what a lot of others seeking to restrict people's freedom's use. They all do it in the name of the very thing they're trying to restrict. We should learn to be vary of such tactics (it's similar to what US Government already uses on you).

That said, regarding this "selling yourself to slavery" nothing you previously agreed upon is actual "slavery" precisely because you agreed upon it. It is a part of your own self-determination process. Should I agree to work for someone for 20 years of my life doing everything he tells me whenever he wants me and living wherever he tells me to live and on whatever food he gives me, WHO exactly are YOU to deny me this right? What if it's an experiment I want to do with myself? Am I not allowed to do whatever I want with my life?

Yet this example is obviously far more dramatic than agreeing to certain proprietary software terms.

Regarding "right to life", be careful what you argue for. I do not believe in such a thing, but before you take this completely wrong let me state quite clearly that I also do not believe anyone has the right to take your life against your will. In other words I believe in the right to suicide, but I don't believe in the right to kill. If you'd deny someone the right to kill himself you'd basically force him to live.

That's not freedom.

In short, don't advocate restrictions of freedom in the name of freedom. THAT's self-contradictory. It doesn't work. That tactic is a dangerous Orwellian meme.

Edited 2009-12-15 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14


Taken literally, yes I can have my cake and eat it too, actually. That might very well be the whole point of me having the cake to begin with: to eat it. Sorry, but it's just a very silly saying. ;)


yes, after you have your cake, you can eat it, but you will no longer have it ..the "and" in this phase is ambiguous ..you understood the two events as being sequencial but it is meant to be understood as being parallel .. you cant have your cake, eat it and continue having it ..if you have it, its because you havent eaten it, if you eat it, you will no longer have it


In short, don't advocate restrictions of freedom in the name of freedom. THAT's self-contradictory. It doesn't work. That tactic is a dangerous Orwellian meme.


how exactly can you have a cake, eat it and continue having it? .. i just cant see how ..

how can you have the right to live and somebody else have the right to kill you at the same time?

how can you have rights if somebody else has the right to take them away from you? ... for you to have rights, somebody else(including you) must not have the right to take them away from you ..

this seem obvious to me .. maybe our reasonings are odd because you think of these statements as occurring sequential and see them as occuring in parallel?

Reply Score: 3

bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

We must restrict some basic freedoms to hunt terrorists
all in the name of Freedom !
*chumps down on some freedom fries* :-)

Reply Score: 1

bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

If someone realizes they are wrong they should definitively change their ways or what its called ..
Even if that makes one seem inconsistent ..

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If it was a post by a compiler implementor about the next version of C++, would you have the same problem?

WPF as a GUI platform is hela-cool. It is miles better then any other gui framework I have played with, allowing you flexibility and downright elegance that you don't see in GUI toolkits, at least in what I have used. I have some major problems with it, but I think it is a big step in the right direction for client side development.

Also, Miguel has been courted by MS for most of his professional career. He could have a job there any time he likes. He works in the Free software world because he believes in it, he just doesn't automatically discount everything microsoft does because they are microsoft. He is one of the last all star developers who is still in the public doing linux-on-the-desktop work, and I think it is really sad how much the community loves to stab people like that in the back.

Reply Score: 8

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

If it was a post by a compiler implementor about the next version of C++, would you have the same problem?


i would and a good fraction of people will too if the next version had proprietary extensions and the implementor was enthusiastically talking about implementing those proprietary extensions

WPF could be the best GUI toolkit in existence and the easiest to work with ..but it is proprietary and it should be expected those who are opposed to proprietary technologies will be opposed to it ..

.net/C# could be a "fantastic platform" but it has proprietary hooks in it that are problematic to free sofware people and these people will object to inclusion of the platform in a free software stack ..

Edited 2009-12-14 17:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

i would and a good fraction of people will too if the next version had proprietary extensions and the implementor was enthusiastically talking about implementing those proprietary extensions


He wasn't though. He didn't mention video once.

.net/C# could be a "fantastic platform" but it has proprietary hooks in it that are problematic to free sofware people and these people will object to inclusion of the platform in a free software stack ..


This has been debunked so many times that the only people who are freaked out about it still believe that because they really want to. YES, you can use things in mono that are not covered by the ECMA spec, NO you don't have to, and are in fact encouraged not to, since they are pretty much just there as a compatibility layer. There is a pretty big exception when it comes to propriatary codecs, but you can sidestep the whole problem by using moonlight and publishing your vids using Ogg or Dirac. In fact, the codecs require a seperate download from MS due to them not really jiving with the rest of the licensing.

Problems with mono should center around things like performance or memory usage, the only reason to even bring up microsoft in that sort of discussion is if you have a pretty bad bias.

Reply Score: 1

YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

YES, you can use things in mono that are not covered by the ECMA spec,

Silverlight, for instance.

NO you don't have to, and are in fact encouraged not to

"[...] perhaps it is a good time to start a movement to create a suite of Silverlight-based desktop applications. [...] I think I speak for the whole Mono team when I say that this is exciting, fascinating, challenging and feels like we just drank a huge energy boost drink."

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Nov-23.html

Not encouraged?

Reply Score: 5

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Ok, so you do have a point. I know moonlight is very important to microsoft, and I highly doubt they would start suing over it, but it is not part of the open spec, and they do have the right to shut it down at any time.

Reply Score: 3

michi Member since:
2006-02-04

WPF as a GUI platform is hela-cool. It is miles better then any other gui framework I have played with, allowing you flexibility and downright elegance that you don't see in GUI toolkits, at least in what I have used. I have some major problems with it, but I think it is a big step in the right direction for client side development.


I wrote a >30000 lines of code application using WPF. It has some nice concepts, but it mostly lacks MVC, which is a serious drawback. With Swing you can easily put hundreds of thousands of items in a listview or a treeview and the GUI will still be fast. Try to do this with WPF. WPF also has some serious performance issues. It is not possible to directly render lines or bezier paths to a bitmap. If you add lines or paths to a bitmap, it will build a scene graph, which is too much overhead for certain type of applications. From my experience WPF has a nice design but the lack of MVC and fast rendering to bitmaps makes it unusable for compelx applications.

Also, Miguel has been courted by MS for most of his professional career. He could have a job there any time he likes. He works in the Free software world because he believes in it, he just doesn't automatically discount everything microsoft does because they are microsoft.


From my experience with Java and .Net, .Net is worse then Java. Java has better APIs, memory mapped files, it is easier to do concurrent programming in Java, Swing is way better then Windows.Forms and still has advantages over WPF. Scala is much better then C#. The JVM optimizes much better then the .Net Runtime, the next version will support stack allocation, the garbage first collector is way better then the .Net one. I don't see the need to reproduce .Net for Linux when there is already a better solution that is OSS.

And there is also Qt which makes it easy to write cross plattform applications.

He is one of the last all star developers who is still in the public doing linux-on-the-desktop work, and I think it is really sad how much the community loves to stab people like that in the back.


There are many people working on KDE and GNOME, Firefox, GIMP, OpenOffice, Amarok etc. Icaza is certainly a great developer, but maybe he should do something original instead of just recreating MS technologies, which might be dangerous for the OSS ecosystem because of patents hold be MS.

Reply Score: 8

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

wrote a >30000 lines of code application using WPF. It has some nice concepts, but it mostly lacks MVC, which is a serious drawback. With Swing you can easily put hundreds of thousands of items in a listview or a treeview and the GUI will still be fast. Try to do this with WPF. WPF also has some serious performance issues. It is not possible to directly render lines or bezier paths to a bitmap. If you add lines or paths to a bitmap, it will build a scene graph, which is too much overhead for certain type of applications. From my experience WPF has a nice design but the lack of MVC and fast rendering to bitmaps makes it unusable for compelx applications.


Agreed. Also, over terminal services, WPF goes from slow to unusable. Approaching this as a web developer, I also can't stand the XML. It is very verbose, and uses PascalCase, which makes the code itself very dense and hard to read. Additionally, it mixes structure, style, and behavior into one big ball of mud, and makes it difficult to pull the different bit apart.

That being said, if you are doing anything the least bit non standard, it is cake with WPF. The other things I like about it are things like bubbled events, how easy it is to do animations/eye candy, and the representation of complex object maps in XML.

From my experience with Java and .Net, .Net is worse then Java. Java has better APIs, memory mapped files, it is easier to do concurrent programming in Java, Swing is way better then Windows.Forms and still has advantages over WPF. Scala is much better then C#. The JVM optimizes much better then the .Net Runtime, the next version will support stack allocation, the garbage first collector is way better then the .Net one. I don't see the need to reproduce .Net for Linux when there is already a better solution that is OSS.


Agreed on all counts. That is pretty much what I was saying, these are the reasons not to use mono, not the whole OMFG its from M<dollar sign> thing.

There are many people working on KDE and GNOME, Firefox, GIMP, OpenOffice, Amarok etc. Icaza is certainly a great developer, but maybe he should do something original instead of just recreating MS technologies, which might be dangerous for the OSS ecosystem because of patents hold be MS.


I'm talking about guys like Havoc Pennington, Seth Nickell, etc. At least in the gnome world, there are very few charismatic guys left to stand up and say "This is the way we should do things. Listen to me based my proven programming chops, vision, and dedication".

Reply Score: 3

cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

WPF also has some serious performance issues. It is not possible to directly render lines or bezier paths to a bitmap.


Really?

var dv = new DrawingVisual();
var dc = dv.RenderOpen();
dc.DrawLine(...); // Draw a line
dc.DrawGeometry(...); // Draw a path
dc.Close();
var bitmap = new RenderTargetBitmap(128, 128, 96, 96, PixelFormats.Pbgra32);
bitmap.Render(dv);

There is no scene graph involved here. On most systems, the rendering will be done using hardware acceleration to a target in video memory, which makes it at least an order of magnitude faster than what you'll find in other UI toolkits.

Reply Score: 2

YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

On most systems, the rendering will be done using hardware acceleration to a target in video memory, which makes it at least an order of magnitude faster than what you'll find in other UI toolkits.

Every serious UI toolkit uses hardware acceleration nowadays. GTK+ (Cairo) does it via XRender, Qt does it, I think even Swing (Java2D) does it now.

Reply Score: 1

Junius Member since:
2009-10-25

Indeed, even AmigOS 4 has hardware accelerated window dragging etc and it's hardly a big player.

Reply Score: 1

cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

Every serious UI toolkit uses hardware acceleration nowadays. GTK+ (Cairo) does it via XRender, Qt does it, I think even Swing (Java2D) does it now.

Yes, every serious toolkit "checks the box" for hardware acceleration, but usually that is limited to simple things like variable width lines and solid color fills of convex polygons. The difference is that WPF can accelerate the whole stack because it takes advantage of 3D hardware. Other toolkits must drop back to software for things like stroke dashing, gradient fills and texture mapping.

Reply Score: 1

tuttle Member since:
2006-03-01

"WPF also has some serious performance issues. It is not possible to directly render lines or bezier paths to a bitmap.


Really?

var dv = new DrawingVisual();
var dc = dv.RenderOpen();
dc.DrawLine(...); // Draw a line
dc.DrawGeometry(...); // Draw a path
dc.Close();
var bitmap = new RenderTargetBitmap(128, 128, 96, 96, PixelFormats.Pbgra32);
bitmap.Render(dv);

There is no scene graph involved here. On most systems, the rendering will be done using hardware acceleration to a target in video memory, which makes it at least an order of magnitude faster than what you'll find in other UI toolkits.
"

You obviously never tried to render some complex geometry using WPF. Where exactly do you think the information about the geometry is after you close the dc and before you render it to the bitmap? Hint: in a scene graph.

That might not be a big deal if you want to combine a few shapes or bitmaps. But if you want to draw thousands of small points or lines several times per second for a real time telemetry display (or even something more mundane like a scrolling stock ticker), it is a big performance problem.

3d acceleration does not help at all since the actual drawing takes almost no time. It is just the allocation and management of the complex data structure that holds geometry before it is rendered.

By the way: if WPF is so great for drawing complex 2D geometry, then why did microsoft come up with a high performance immediate mode drawing API called Direct2D? The only way to write serious graphics heavy applications in WPF is to let Direct2D do the heavy lifting. But the downside is that Direct2D is only available from vista upward, so in a conservative industry like banking or space operations you can not use it for the next five years.

Reply Score: 2

jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Sorry to burst your troll bubble, but this thread was not started because of Miguel's mention of silverlight, but rather:

From RMS:

"The presence of articles discussing vmware, for instance, conveys the message that GNOME sees nothing wrong with it."

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg000...

Reply Score: 1

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

Sorry to burst your troll bubble, but this thread was not started because of Miguel's mention of silverlight, but rather:

From RMS:

"The presence of articles discussing vmware, for instance, conveys the message that GNOME sees nothing wrong with it."

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg000...


RMS commented on the thread that was already in progress .. according to this webpage linked below, the thread was started by a complained made agaisnt mr. Icaza blog post


interesting quote is:

"
Updated, 2.40pm AEDT: It was initially not possible to ascertain definitely as to what post on Planet GNOME led to the complaints which Roche mentioned. But it seems fairly clear now that this post, about Microsoft's Silverlight, by De Icaza was the catalyst.
"
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/29995/1090/

Reply Score: 1

jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

Sam Vargese knows nothing about why it was started. He's *assuming* and we all know what that means.

Reply Score: 1

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

some people including RMS said it was inappropriate for project under GNU to show such enthusiasm with proprietary programs and somebody(not RMS) complained about it


And those people entirely missed the point, that personal blogs by Gnome developers do not represent Gnome itself, and if Miguel wants to talk about MS technologies on his blog, that that has nothing to do with Gnome or GNU.

Reply Score: 2

coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

The "planets" just aggregrate what is on developer's blogs from a certain project. They might talk about GNOME, but they might also discuss KDE, movies, proprietary software or pizza. This whole thing is just silly.

RMS should just crawl back under that rock he's been hiding under.

Reply Score: 1

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Richard Stallman's idiotic outbursts does more damage for the publicity of FSF (et al) than anything on Planet GNOME


Stallman did NOT start the discussion. In fact he isn't even a major part of it.

Reply Score: 5

A Tale of Two Communities
by shawnjgoff on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:12 UTC
shawnjgoff
Member since:
2008-05-02

This bit of news prompted me to write a post on my blog about it. I suddenly realized that there is not a FOSS community. There are two communities: those who are in it for pragmatic reasons, and those who are in it to protect human rights to free software. They have always been there - ever since Linus used GNU software and the GPL with his Linux. These two communities think they are one, and this results in a lot of friction, because people in one think the other folks are bad apples.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A Tale of Two Communities
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:19 UTC in reply to "A Tale of Two Communities"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

This bit of news prompted me to write a post on my blog about it. I suddenly realized that there is not a FOSS community. There are two communities: those who are in it for pragmatic reasons, and those who are in it to protect human rights to free software. They have always been there - ever since Linus used GNU software and the GPL with his Linux. These two communities think they are one, and this results in a lot of friction, because people in one think the other folks are bad apples.


That's not news. It's Free Software vs. Open Source, RMS vs. ESR.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A Tale of Two Communities
by boldingd on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:21 UTC in reply to "A Tale of Two Communities"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

It's a spectrum: there are extremists on both ends, and then a lot of moderates in the middle, who just want decent, Open-Source software. I strongly suspect that moderates/the apathetic greatly outnumber the vocal extremists.

Note Stevie's post directly above yours. He's actually right.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A Tale of Two Communities
by google_ninja on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:24 UTC in reply to "A Tale of Two Communities"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The problem is mostly stallman, and his love of adopting politically charged words and ideas to rile up the youngsters.

consider how you just described it

those who are in it to protect human rights to free software


Human rights are a very important and serious idea. We are talking life, liberty, equality under the law, etc. This is what Freedom means.

I don't get insulted that easily, but putting software of ANY kind in that category is insulting to me. I'm a software developer, and I probably consider computers far more important then most people, but even I don't think it comes even remotely close to a human right. Saying that demeans what these things really are, and pollutes a term that people give their lives to work for.

If Stallman stopped talking about freedom, and started calling it something closer to what it is, then I am sure there would be a hell of a lot less friction for the people who are in the movement, but still have some measure of sanity.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: A Tale of Two Communities
by koen.lefever on Mon 14th Dec 2009 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE: A Tale of Two Communities"
koen.lefever Member since:
2007-07-05

"those who are in it to protect human rights to free software


Human rights are a very important and serious idea. We are talking life, liberty, equality under the law, etc. This is what Freedom means.

I don't get insulted that easily, but putting software of ANY kind in that category is insulting to me.
"

We are currently shaping the world/our society by this software. Humans have been trying to understand the world for ages, let's not undo that by implementing & distributing obscure software. This is a matter of human rights.

Reply Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

No, it isn't. You could say it was a matter of social justice, and I still wouldn't agree with you, but I wouldn't just say you are flat out wrong. The right to live and the right to source code are not even remotely on the same level.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: A Tale of Two Communities
by bugjacobs on Tue 15th Dec 2009 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Tale of Two Communities"
bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

The right to sourcecode in the end is a question if you have the right to IT-democracy, and if you lose IT-democracy you might possibly also lose political freedom. And you know if you lose political freedom youre likely soon living in a totalitarian dictatatorship which might eliminate your right to live. Its all connected, like a series of tubes .. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A Tale of Two Communities
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE: A Tale of Two Communities"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem is mostly stallman, and his love of adopting politically charged words


The FOSS movement is a political movement. It's a movement for democracy in the realm of IT.

Eben Moglen held a talk about intellectual property law, the SCO trial, and (most importantly) FOSS in general and how it's a modern civil rights movement: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6345039926759549406
Watch it.

Reply Score: 7

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I've heard Eban Moglan talk before IRL (and stallman, and ESR) Software source code being a civil right is better then it being a human right, but it is still kind of a disgusting thing to say. We are going from comparing access to source code being comparable to the right to live, to access to source code being comparable to protection against discrimination based on sex, race, or sexual orientation.

Saying it is a battle for consumer rights is closer to the truth. I don't nessicarily agree with that battle, but that is what it is. It makes you sound a hell of alot more credible when you are in the company of rosa parks rather then consumerreports.com.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A Tale of Two Communities
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Tale of Two Communities"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

I've heard Eban Moglan talk before IRL (and stallman, and ESR) Software source code being a civil right is better then it being a human right, but it is still kind of a disgusting thing to say.

If you think that freedom is disgusting, you should move to North Korea.

Well, that someone who calls himself "Google Ninja" has no respect for freedom is no surprise, given how Google "respects" users' privacy...

Edited 2009-12-14 21:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24


If you think that freedom is disgusting, you should...
...
Well, that someone who calls himself "Google Ninja" has no respect for freedom is...

Kurt, there really should be a corollary to Godwin's Law for the kind of Internet forum post you just made.

Reply Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I guess refusing to respond to anything past the first paragraph and personal insults means I win.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: A Tale of Two Communities
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: A Tale of Two Communities"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, you win.... as it's about winning here....

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A Tale of Two Communities
by bugjacobs on Tue 15th Dec 2009 18:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Tale of Two Communities"
bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

But when EVERYTHING is moving into the computer sphere, everything - what we publish of our views, what we do with our friends, our medical records, our banking.

Suddenly JUST computers, OSs, and software become so large a part of our life that the control of it IS pretty much talking about human rights ..

We could possibly call it a "right to fair use of Information Technology", and that wont happen unless governments regulate what proprietary techs do or make sure there always is an Open alternative ..

Its pretty scary how stuff like Facebook and Tweeter and Google eat up of peoples lives now, with privacy unregulated .. Not to forget the good old MS that has its trojanhorse OSs on virtually every computer ..

Rule the Internet, Rule the OS, Rule the WORLD !!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: A Tale of Two Communities
by rbenchley on Tue 15th Dec 2009 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: A Tale of Two Communities"
rbenchley Member since:
2005-11-03

Its pretty scary how stuff like Facebook and Tweeter and Google eat up of peoples lives now, with privacy unregulated .. Not to forget the good old MS that has its trojanhorse OSs on virtually every computer .. Rule the Internet, Rule the OS, Rule the WORLD !!


The potential problems with sites like Twitter, Facebook and Google have nothing to do with open source vs. closed source. You could set up a social networking site that used nothing but free software for it's APIs, but you would have the same problems. The issue is with private data/persona information. Personally, I don't use social networking sites and the like because I value my privacy and I don't trust any of my private data to anyone else. As for Microsoft's "Trojan Horse OSes", please explain. I have my tinfoil hat ready!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: A Tale of Two Communities
by bugjacobs on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: A Tale of Two Communities"
bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

Naah, I cant explain, its more like a gut feeling there is some kind of world domination plan, particularily in 7 ..

And I agree that the issue about the social networking sites not being about FOSS or no FOSS, as long as someone puts his or her info on the web it can be considered to be spread on all winds, no matter what service we put it on ..

Though Id like a LAW that makes for example Facebook criminally liable if they dont delete peoples profiles if they ask to be totally and fully deleted. Though sure, what I wrote above always apply anyway so I guess its hopeless ..

Edited 2009-12-15 22:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A Tale of Two Communities
by DaCveTuX on Mon 14th Dec 2009 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE: A Tale of Two Communities"
DaCveTuX Member since:
2009-12-14

Reading the article and the stories behind, reading the comments and positions and everything I can only say - thanks to everyone in the FOSS community - without you I would probably read some dumb articles about how great mono and Silverlight form MS are ;)

Seriously, this whole will/wont, right/wrong, stick/split means nothing for the community in the long term. You all know what it means choosing the red pill and then, after years, reversing the chosen action!?

It is all about faith, ideals and love in the end - it is more about emotions then ratio. You don't have the human rights because of rationality but because of emotions, because you feel it is right. It is the same here - choose what you feel is right and stick to it. Do not jump left/right as with the jumping you will loose yourself and most notably love for why you where jumping in the fist place.

I respect RMS, I am a FOSS user, I do not like proprietary software but still have to use it and my opinion is that RMS has to defend what he is standing and fighting for. This is the only right thing to do. If he would not, he would mostly betray himself and the whole FOSS community - can you imagine hearing RMS say: "It is okay to use some proprietary software if they are more advanced or for any other reason." Well, I can not imagine a world with this kind of RMS.

And have in mind: RMS did NO HARM to NO ONE - heck, the only HARM he did is to stand his ground??! And that is why we all CAN have this debate today and hopefully in the future - everything else are minor technical questions.

So, to conclude: Stick to what you choose and love ;)

Cheers....

Edited 2009-12-14 20:02 UTC

Reply Score: 5

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

can you imagine hearing RMS say: "It is okay to use some proprietary software if they are more advanced or for any other reason." Well, I can not imagine a world with this kind of RMS.


Of course not. What he said was "You cannot talk about the inspiration for an LGPL product on a GNOME mailing list"

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: A Tale of Two Communities
by czayas on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE: A Tale of Two Communities"
czayas Member since:
2009-04-09

Education is a basic human right, and only Free Software based on the free and open standards of the Internet can make free access to education something possible.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The right to education is recognized as a human right by the United Nations[1] and is understood to establish an entitlement to free, compulsory primary education for all children, an obligation to develop secondary education accessible to all children, as well as equitable access to higher education, and a responsibility to provide basic education for individuals who have not completed primary education. In addition to these access to education provisions the right to education encompasses also the obligation to eliminate discrimination at all levels of the educational system, to set minimum standards and to improve quality.[2]
The right to education is enshrined in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[3][4] The right to education has also been reaffirmed in the 1960 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, 1st Protocol of ECHR and the 1981 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.[5]

(from wikipedia)

As you can see there, the right to education is there as a way to keep people uneducated based on their race, class, sex, etc in countries where such discrimination exists. How does free software and open standards on the internet have anything to do with that?

Reply Score: 2

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

You mean "keep people from being uneducated", right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A Tale of Two Communities
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Tale of Two Communities"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

As you can see there, the right to education is there as a way to keep people uneducated based on their race, class, sex, etc in countries where such discrimination exists. How does free software and open standards on the internet have anything to do with that?

If you actually watched Eben Moglen's talk I've posted in an earlier reply to you, instead of being disgusted of freedom in the realm of IT, you would have watched how in detail Eben Moglen explains that the free availability of source code means the free availability of free technical knowledge -- you know.... that stuff that's transmitted in education...

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

mountains of source code available of varying degrees of quality with (mostly) poor documentation is not related in any way to preventing discrimination in education. We are talking about not letting women into school, not allowing anyone to see how photoshop does what it does. Nice try though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: A Tale of Two Communities
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: A Tale of Two Communities"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

You should discuss your deep insight with Eben Moglen and how he as a highly educated professor is wrong when he says (quote):

"The goal of the Free Software Movement is to enable people to understand, to learn from, to improve, to adapt, and to share the technology that increasingly runs every human life.

The fundamental belief in fairness here is not that it is fair that things should be free. It is that it is fair that we should be free and that our thoughts should be free, that we should be able to know as much about the world in which we live as possible, and that we should be as little as possible captive to other people's knowledge, beyond the appeal to our own understanding and initiative.

This idea lay behind my dear friend and colleague, Richard Stallman's, intense desire, beginning in the early 1980's, to bring about a world in which all the computer software needed by anybody to do anything would be available on terms which permitted free access to the knowledge that that software contained and a free opportunity to make more knowledge and to improve on the existing technology by modification and sharing.

This is a desire for a free evolution of technical knowledge. A descent by modification untrammeled by principles that forbid improvement, access and sharing. If you think about it, it sounds rather like a commitment to encourage the diffusion of science and the useful arts by promoting access to knowledge.

In short, the idea of the Free Software Movement is neither hostile to, nor in any sense at cross-purposes with, the 18th century ambition for the improvement of society and the human being through access to knowledge."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6345039926759549406
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/moglen-harvard-speech-2004.html

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: A Tale of Two Communities
by czayas on Tue 15th Dec 2009 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Tale of Two Communities"
czayas Member since:
2009-04-09

As you can see there, the right to education is there as a way to keep people uneducated based on their race, class, sex, etc in countries where such discrimination exists. How does free software and open standards on the internet have anything to do with that?


When you said "to keep people uneducated" I think you meant "to help uneducated people", right? Well, in my honest opinion, the point here is discrimination, as you say, in "race, class, sex, etc".

Proprietary software is discriminatory. Only an exclusive group of people has access to source code, although probably a significant percentage of that code is based on free software. Another problem, but of lesser importance, is that proprietary software licenses are available only for people who can afford them.

Education and the GNU Project:
http://www.gnu.org/education/

Why schools should exclusively use free software:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html

Why give precedence to Free Software at school:
http://fsfe.org/projects/education/argumentation.en.html

Edited 2009-12-15 13:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A Tale of Two Communities
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE: A Tale of Two Communities"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I don't get insulted that easily, but putting software of ANY kind in that category is insulting to me. I'm a software developer, and I probably consider computers far more important then most people, but even I don't think it comes even remotely close to a human right.


I am convinced most of the loony anti-RMS crowd match your opinion on this. It's a fundamental difference in the way they and I view the world.

I am with RMS on this one. Free software is absolutely about Freedom and it should be considered a right, along with other forms of expression. There should be laws giving specific limits on when non-Free software is permitted to limit your freedom. If you don't see this as fundamentally important then of course you think those who do are loonies. I think those who don't are hopelessly naive. This is the nature of the divide.

But, please try to understand, our difference is in point of view. We are not any crazier than you are and our actions are based on logic, reason and good faith. I try hard not to assume, when I read an anti-RMS post, that the poster is stupid, ignorant or evil. I really try. If you could afford the same consideration then that would be helpful.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I've never said FSF people are stupid, ignorant, or evil.

I grew up the son of a social worker, and have a great deal of knowledge, and respect, for civil and human rights, and the people that fight for them.

Like I said somewhere else, change the terms you are using from Freedom, or Civil Right, or Human Right to Consumer Right (which it is), and I won't get angry. I may not agree, but I will be a hell of a lot more ready to listen to you then if you go adopting terms that are highly charged inappropriately. That is the point you are arguing, and while I may not agree with that point, I will be a great deal more inclined to talk about it with you in a rational sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: A Tale of Two Communities
by sorpigal on Thu 17th Dec 2009 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: A Tale of Two Communities"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I may not agree, but I will be a hell of a lot more ready to listen to you then if you go adopting terms that are highly charged inappropriately.


My point is that it is not inappropriate.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A Tale of Two Communities
by David on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:27 UTC in reply to "A Tale of Two Communities"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I think you hit the nail on the head there. I think one of the reasons that the "outside world" sees these occasional spats as such a sideshow is that people are not at all aware of the "two worlds" issue. Most tech-savvy people have come to a general understanding of the various open source licenses and what the difference between them is in a pragmatic way, and understand that the choice of a license is based on ideology to some extent.

However, even though RMS has been very consistent in promoting his dogma, people get surprised every time he pipes up because most people just can't grok getting dogmatic over a software license. I think it's also that people are astounded each time that the leader of such a prominent organization is such a nut, but that's another matter.

It helps if you think of free software like yoga. For most people in the western world, yoga is an effective form of exercise. But don't forget that for some people, its a sacred religious ordinance. RMS is the high priest of a religious sect, and what we see as useful software, he sees as something akin to holy scripture. He walks among us, but he is not one of us.

Reply Score: 4

Spectrum of opinion.
by spudley99 on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:18 UTC
spudley99
Member since:
2009-03-25

I disagree with him, but I believe it's good to have radicals like RMS.

It is important to have a spectrum of opinion, because the existence of the extremists is what makes the more moderate opinions seem moderate.

Being an extremist is merely being at the edge of a spectrum of opinion. If extremists like RMS weren't there, the spectrum of opinion would be narrower, but those on the edge would still be viewed as extremists.

So those open source advocates out there who are seen as fairly moderate can thank RMS for that. Without him we'd be the extremists.


As for what the GNOME project should do, I guess they should probably leave the GNU.

The GNU was originally a grand plan to create an OS, but it will never achieve that; that task has been delegated to the Distributions. So what is the GNU now, other than a loose collection of software projects with a common set of values. So if GNOME doesn't fit with those values any more, then it really doesn't belong in the GNU.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Spectrum of opinion.
by tylerdurden on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:30 UTC in reply to "Spectrum of opinion."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Agreed. I may disagree with some of Stallman's antics and points of view. But at least he believes in something, some organizations would benefit from having some purists at their hearts. And I think GNU is one of them.

I get a hoot to read the comments from people who trash Stallman, and I wonder how many of them have a similar track record regarding the organizations they have helped create... I think a lot of people trashing him, some doing so by using gnu-related tools, are just too chicken sh*t to actually stand for something.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion.
by google_ninja on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Spectrum of opinion."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I think a lot of people trashing him, some doing so by using gnu-related tools, are just too chicken sh*t to actually stand for something.


Agreed. In fact, Darl McBride is the only person I can think of who is willing to stand by his ideals and beliefs anywhere near as strongly as stallman, and not let the rest of the world, or in fact reality itself stand in his way.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Spectrum of opinion.
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:06 UTC in reply to "Spectrum of opinion."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Good post.

The GNU was originally a grand plan to create an OS, but it will never achieve that; that task has been delegated to the Distributions. So what is the GNU now, other than a loose collection of software projects with a common set of values. So if GNOME doesn't fit with those values any more, then it really doesn't belong in the GNU.


I think it goes the other way: GNU should ditch GNOME. Since the GNU OS wont be done any time soon there is no imperative for its desktop environment to work at the moment. As such they should really choose the desktop environment that is best from a technical standpoint and back it. Just like the HURD is a great technical solution to an OS but is not presently as good as Linux in reality; this is no impediment to GNU because their goals don't include short term commercial viability, their goals are simply to make things that are good (and Free, of course).

GNOME was never a great project. It was a desperate attempt to undermine KDE, based on the then non-Free QT. Admittedly it succeeded, and we should be glad, but there is little else to recommend GNOME or any of its technologies.

If it were me and I could make it go any way I wanted I'd get GNU to back GNUStep. OpenStep is still the only open specification for a cross platform GUI that doesn't suck. The main issue with it is Obj-C, but there are many solutions for that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion.
by lemur2 on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Spectrum of opinion."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

GNOME was never a great project. It was a desperate attempt to undermine KDE, based on the then non-Free QT. Admittedly it succeeded,


How do you figure this?

Of the notable distributions: Ubuntu (via Kubuntu), OpenSuSe, Fedora, Mandriva, Mint, Arch, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS, Ultimate and Slackware all ship both KDE and GNOME desktop variants.

Pardus, Sidux/Knoppix and MEPIS ship only with KDE desktops.

I think it goes the other way: GNU should ditch GNOME.


That is an interesting concept. GNOME is currently a GNU project. AFAIK, it is one of the few GNU projects to refrain from adopting the GPL v3 (is that correct?).

OTOH, GNU itself is a Free Software project (and not simply an open source project).

If the GNOME board want GNOME to move towards being an open source project only, then a split of GNOME from GNU would seem to be quite logical. At least then GNOME would be what it is ... open source, but not Free Software. Truth in advertising.

I have no idea what that would do to its relative popularity.

Edited 2009-12-14 22:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Spectrum of opinion.
by Ed W. Cogburn on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

How do you figure this?

Of the notable distributions ...


KDE showing up on those distributions only happened *after* Qt was dual-licensed under the GPL. Prior to that (when Qt was effectively proprietary) it wasn't supported by any commercial distro (AFAIR).

If the GNOME board want GNOME to move towards being an open source project only, then a split of GNOME from GNU would seem to be quite logical. ...

I have no idea what that would do to its relative popularity.


Agreed, and Gnome's popularity wouldn't be effected that much by this change. Its only the incorporation of proprietary stuff like Moonlight that would have a dramatic effect (up to & including some distros dropping it as their primary DE if that were to happen). Gnome's association with GNU is not now important or essential to either one.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Spectrum of opinion.
by lemur2 on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Spectrum of opinion."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"How do you figure this? Of the notable distributions ...
KDE showing up on those distributions only happened *after* Qt was dual-licensed under the GPL. Prior to that (when Qt was effectively proprietary) it wasn't supported by any commercial distro (AFAIR). "

KDE was the desktop for Mandriva and SuSe distributions, and also for more minor distributions like MEPIS, Knoppix, PCLinuxOS et al. Only when KDE 4.0 was first released and still flaky did some of these distributions also make a GNOME option.

Now that KDE4 is stable once again, these distributions are all moving back to KDE4.

"If the GNOME board want GNOME to move towards being an open source project only, then a split of GNOME from GNU would seem to be quite logical. ... I have no idea what that would do to its relative popularity.
Agreed, and Gnome's popularity wouldn't be effected that much by this change. Its only the incorporation of proprietary stuff like Moonlight that would have a dramatic effect (up to & including some distros dropping it as their primary DE if that were to happen). Gnome's association with GNU is not now important or essential to either one. "

If GNOME starts to drift more and more towards proprietary, as appears to be on the cards, then I would suggest it might find waning popularity amongst individuals, but it might gain in acceptance by businesses.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48972

Edited 2009-12-15 00:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Spectrum of opinion.
by fossil on Tue 15th Dec 2009 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion."
fossil Member since:
2009-05-29

Not to pick a fight, but I don't think that Gnome has been an install option in Slackware for some time. I installed Slackware 13 a while back and vaguely remember KDE, XFCE, and Fluxbox being options, and perhaps others but not Gnome. A quick check via Google shows a post by Pat V. dated 23 Mar 2005, stating it was being dropped and why.

Be that as it may, if GNOME finds itself in fundamental disagreement with GNU's core principles, i.e. the four freedoms, it should do itself, GNU, and everyone else a favor be leaving gracefully. Personally, I don't care what GNOME does or if there is a GNOME tomorrow, XFCE and KDE,are preferable DE's for me, and I'd really rather use Fluxbox or LXDE than GNOME. Not sure why. Full disclosure: posted from Debian Squeeze, using Opera on an XFCE desktop. Oh, and ... FSF dues-paying member.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Spectrum of opinion.
by sorpigal on Thu 17th Dec 2009 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"GNOME was never a great project. It was a desperate attempt to undermine KDE, based on the then non-Free QT. Admittedly it succeeded,

How do you figure this?
"

Simple: Most distributions use GNOME by default. Even if this were not true, most applications use GTK. Even if this were not true, there isn't a defacto DE.

If QT had been LGPL or GPL or BSD then GNOME would not exist and there would *probably* be a defacto DE and QT would *probably* be the most common toolkit. So, GNOME succeeded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion.
by Ed W. Cogburn on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Spectrum of opinion."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

OpenStep is still the only open specification for a cross platform GUI that doesn't suck. The main issue with it is Obj-C


I have nothing against OpenStep or ObjC, but its ironic you seem to have forgotten the very thing that created Gnome in the first place: Qt.

Its now dual-licensed under commercial/GPL3/LGPL2, which makes it as Free and Open (if not more so?) than GTK, and is now *more* cross-platform than GTK is and likely even OpenStep (has that been ported to Nokia's phone platforms?). At least the major platforms are all actively supported by Qt now: Win, Mac, X11, Embedded Linux, Win Mobile, plus Nokia's Symbian and Maemo platforms.

Now for some people, Qt being written in C++ may be as problematic as OpenStep being written in ObjC, but probably like OpenStep, its got wrappers/bindings to use it with just about every other language out there.

Since Qt is (now) also an "open specification for a cross platform GUI", to say that OpenStep is the only one is just false I believe.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Spectrum of opinion.
by sorpigal on Thu 17th Dec 2009 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I have nothing against OpenStep or ObjC, but its ironic you seem to have forgotten the very thing that created Gnome in the first place: Qt.

Its now dual-licensed under commercial/GPL3/LGPL2, which makes it as Free and Open (if not more so?) than GTK, and is now *more* cross-platform than GTK is and likely even OpenStep (has that been ported to Nokia's phone platforms?).


I choose my words carefully, please read them carefully. Quoting myself:

OpenStep is still the only open specification for a cross platform GUI that doesn't suck.


QT is GPL, but where's the QT spec so I can write compatible software? If there is I haven't seen it. Plus, as wide as QT's coverage is, it does not cover the full swath of technologies you need to make a desktop environment.

QT's language of implementation is abhorrent to some, but as long as it has bindings for C, etc., this problem is not insurmountable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Spectrum of opinion.
by Ed W. Cogburn on Fri 18th Dec 2009 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Spectrum of opinion."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

OpenStep is still the only open specification for a cross platform GUI that doesn't suck.


Its 15 years old now and effectively frozen because virtually everything that Apple has added to their implementation since then isn't open, so can't be added to GNUStep's implementation.

There is no unified "OpenStep spec" anymore, there is GNUStep, and then whatever Apple provides.

As a spec, its not really valuable, since only one player (GNUStep) is really sticking to it, and since the spec is not being updated...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Spectrum of opinion.
by sorpigal on Fri 18th Dec 2009 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Spectrum of opinion."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

The spec, however, *could* be updated if interested parties wanted to do it. It's a good place to start and far better than flailing around with no plan.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Spectrum of opinion.
by Ed W. Cogburn on Fri 18th Dec 2009 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Spectrum of opinion."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

The spec, however, *could* be updated if interested parties wanted to do it. It's a good place to start and far better than flailing around with no plan.


but I do have a plan: use Qt. ;)

and that plan doesn't require me to wait around for that cold day in hell when Apple decides to update/renovate the OpenStep spec.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Spectrum of opinion.
by sorpigal on Fri 18th Dec 2009 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Spectrum of opinion."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

A de facto standard is not a standard of any useful kind, especially when it keeps changing. If you want QT to be the DE API standard, go write it up and propose it. Until it's written there's too little certainty.

Apple is not the only one who could update OpenStep. They might be the only ones who could *call* the updated standard OpenStep, but the name hardly matters.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Spectrum of opinion.
by silix on Tue 15th Dec 2009 19:41 UTC in reply to "Spectrum of opinion."
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

I disagree with him, but I believe it's good to have radicals like RMS.

i who work as a sw developer find his very existence utterly embarrassing since stallman put me (and all those like me) in the same league as murderers and rapists, but to each his own opinion, i guess

It is important to have a spectrum of opinion, because the existence of the extremists is what makes the more moderate opinions seem moderate.


moderate opinions does not seem such because they are "more moderate" than current extremists
they are moderate because they come from people who acts and reasons pragmatically (instead of dogmatically) and (more important) respects other's opinions and arguments even when they dissent - common traits of moderate people, the opposite of what an extremist or radical usually is and does

Being an extremist is merely being at the edge of a spectrum of opinion.

except that being a character trait, what makes someone an extremist (or moderate) person, isnt strictly tied to a specific topic but affects all aspects of public conduct as far as expressing opinions (and discussin them with others) is concerned, or applies to all kinds of public endeavours where people don't agree on something

If extremists like RMS weren't there, the spectrum of opinion would be narrower, but those on the edge would still be viewed as extremists.
So those open source advocates out there who are seen as fairly moderate can thank RMS for that. Without him we'd be the extremists.

current moderates have none of the traits (blind faith, leader's personality cult, "black or white" "with us or against us" attitude wrt others and so on) of other extremist social, religious, political fringes (namely communists, fascists, talibans), so it's not like they would be considered in the same league, if RMS and his followers (who on the contrary share the aforementioned traits) weren't there
just, the FOSS one would be described as a single, friendly, open and pragmatical community

As for what the GNOME project should do, I guess they should probably leave the GNU.

that would be funny, since GNOME stands for GNU Network Object Model Environment, ie GNOME is supposed to be an integral part of the GNU - i'm somewhat inclined to think that if GNOME spins off, the whole GNU ecosystem will start to fall apart in some time..

The GNU was originally a grand plan to create an OS

of which GNOME was supposed to be what the WorkPlace Shell was for OS/2, the official GUI and graphical environment

So what is the GNU now, other than a loose collection of software projects with a common set of values.So if GNOME doesn't fit with those values any more, then it really doesn't belong in the GNU.

but the point is: what are those values?
at the very beginning, free software was (or was depicted as being) about giving something (value, power, customizeability, assurance, at least choice) to the user - thus FOSS was user centric (by definition)
immediately after that came the vision of a world without proprietary software, thus a world without people like me and without professional applications ( since, you know, individual hobbysts hardly have the time, programming skills, and field knowledge to implement another AutoCAD or Photoshop), and the exploitation of half baked, perpetual beta software to push one man's agenda and values onto others (something that i'm personally disgusted by, and which has convinced me to quit touching linux or anything foss to even avoid dirtying myself with senseless idiocy)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Spectrum of opinion.
by Morty on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Spectrum of opinion."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

"As for what the GNOME project should do, I guess they should probably leave the GNU.

that would be funny, since GNOME stands for GNU Network Object Model Environment,
"

Quite funny, since they already abandoned the Network Object Model part years ago.

Edited 2009-12-15 22:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Who let Stallman out of his cell?
by jonathane on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:25 UTC
jonathane
Member since:
2009-05-31

80% of the time he's in the news, it's because of some offensive remark he made.

Reply Score: 6

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

Thats because he has his distractors who follow him around waiting for him to say something controversial and then amplify it to present him in a negative way to undermine his effort at spreading what he believes in

most of his distractors at the moment are on the "open source" camp who are lusting to incorporate proprietary techonogies in free code and see his opposition to this as an annoyance and wish him to just shut up or die somewhere ..

Reply Score: 5

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

And most of the time the offensive remark turns out to be some candid remark taken out of context by people with way too thin of a skin and too much time on their hands.

He does have certain personality issues, but honestly so do 90% of people involved in this field.

Reply Score: 4

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

80% of the time he's in the news, it's because of some offensive remark he made.

That's because the news is only picking those up. The discussion wasn't even started by him, nor is he a major part of the actual discussion.

Reply Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

80% of the time he's in the news, it's because of some offensive remark he made.


If that were true he would have had to have made an offensive remark to be in the news this time, right? What part did you find offensive? Please quote and link so that I can rip apart your argument precisely and conveniently.

Reply Score: 2

If FOSS is a success
by Dasher42 on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:27 UTC
Dasher42
Member since:
2007-04-05

What Stallman is suggesting doesn't take anything away from the user. Of course there's non-free software that builds on top of free; this is not a problem, but it's not the goal. If you let this creep, you'll compromise the reasons FOSS exists to begin with. If freedom didn't matter, I'd have gone completely Mac; Linux wouldn't be on my desktop for where open standards, transparency, and absence of marketing BS are important.

It's curious to see this fact lost on a site littered with news of derelict operating systems like AmigaOS and BeOS whose progeny took many years to appear owing to the closed ancestry. Linux has kept on truckin' while those operating systems nearly suffocated in the stiff grip of their companies du jour. Let's not forget why.

Reply Score: 6

RE: If FOSS is a success
by David on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:33 UTC in reply to "If FOSS is a success"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I think that's an important point. We can mock people who take the ideology too far, but without the ideology to sustain it, especially at the beginning, the useful free software that all the "pragmatic" people enjoy would probably have never existed.

If there weren't "crazies" out there willing to struggle and suffer for what they believe in, how much great art would there be in the world? Would we have civic freedoms at all, or would be still be under hereditary monarchies? How much technology would we have? If every artists, author, philosopher, and revolutionary leader were guided by cold rationality and commerce, where would human civilization be today?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: If FOSS is a success
by tylerdurden on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE: If FOSS is a success"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Agreed 100% with the both of you. To me pragmatism is only valid for projects where it makes sense: production environments with fairly well defined goals and restrictions: Use he correct tool, to get the job done on time and on spec. After all that is what computers and software really are: tools.

However, pragmatism makes absolutely no sense on other projects with far longer (and reaching) goals and roadmaps. Bitching about GNU's politics, when these politics are the actual reason why the project was created to begin with reeks, to me at least, of wanting to have it both ways.

We live in a world where pragmatism for the sake of pragmatism has been converted in a positive quality just because. That is why we have now pragmatism considered a very positive quality in politics, when pragmatism is the actual antithesis of politics. It is like wanting to be a catholic because you like the buildings while wishing for an agnostic church since you don't care much for the religious side of it.

Criticising Stallman for staying true to his word is probably due because those people trashing him have never stood for anything, and can't really fathom why anyone would do such a thing: have principles and stick by them.

As I said, I may not agree with some of Stallman's antics and points of view. But at least the guy has been consistent on his stands, has stuck to his ideals, and the organization he created allowed me to use some tools which have been fundamental for my work (and formation) as a researcher. For that I respect him immensely, and it would be a cold day in hell if I were to throw him under the bus just because...

The tech field is already dominated by too many grey, soul less, anti-social types... some spice and diversity is extremely welcome in my humble point of view.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: If FOSS is a success
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If FOSS is a success"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Criticising Stallman for staying true to his word is probably due because those people trashing him have never stood for anything, and can't really fathom why anyone would do such a thing: have principles and stick by them.


Yay, let's generalise and magically assume that people criticising RMS are automatically people with no principles and no spine.

Can you honestly not fathom that the criticism on RMS is founded? Do you truly believe all people who are critical of RMS are people with no principles themselves?

Heck, and you wonder WHY we criticise him.

*shakes head*

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: If FOSS is a success
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If FOSS is a success"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02



Heck, and you wonder WHY we criticise him.

*shakes head*


I do wonder why. I think people who are against RMS are either evil people promoting a scheme that harms me for their own benefit, or simply delusional.

Care to suggest an alternative hypothesis?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: If FOSS is a success
by Bios Element on Tue 15th Dec 2009 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: If FOSS is a success"
Bios Element Member since:
2009-12-15

I'd say if you think that's true then you're either an evil person promoting a scheme to harm me (because of RMS had his way I wouldn't have graphic drivers.) or simply delusional.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: If FOSS is a success
by sorpigal on Thu 17th Dec 2009 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: If FOSS is a success"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

If RMS had his way you would have graphic drivers. Free ones.

RMS is not harming you by repeatedly asking for Free graphics drivers and repeatedly asking that you not use non-Free graphics drivers. You are free to ignore him, as you have done. If he eventually succeeds and all graphics drivers are free you win again!

Where's the evil?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: If FOSS is a success
by nt_jerkface on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If FOSS is a success"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The tech field is already dominated by too many grey, soul less, anti-social types... some spice and diversity is extremely welcome in my humble point of view.


If by diversity you mean zealous fanaticism to an ideology that is clearly incongruent with reality then no, I'd rather not have that in the tech world. I'd rather the tech world be a break from that.

As for your comment about tech workers, it's the grey anti-social types that are working behind the scenes to make sure the magical machines operate so people can watch American idol.

If the tech world is too cold and pragmatic for you then go into politics where there is much diversity in fuzzy thinking.

Reply Score: 2

Stallman didn't build gcc in the woods
by nt_jerkface on Mon 14th Dec 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE: If FOSS is a success"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

He built on top of a mountain of proprietary work. His ideology makes no recognition of the fact that proprietary software allows the modern world to operate.

There's nothing wrong with being emotional and idealistic but Stallman is a loon that pushes a destructive ideology that is incompatible with software economic realities. He is motivated more out of spite than idealism.

If he never existed then FreeBSD would be the de facto free Unix. There would actually be more progress in the Unix world since there would be less fragmentation.

Stallman is a loon that should be ignored. Some of the most popular open source software is funded by proprietary profits. It's totally ridiculous to run around screaming about the sins proprietary software when it is paying the bills.

Reply Score: 3

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

FreeBSD LOL

Every FreeBSD "distro company" would have made its own proprietary extensions to their FreeBSD-distro. Companies are like that. That is why Unix died (ongoing process) and will be replaced by Linux.

Read this if you don't believe me:

http://lwn.net/Articles/354408/

Quote:
"
All of these mistakes notwithstanding, one should not overlook the success of X as free software. X predates version 1 of the GPL by some five years. Once the GPL came out, Richard Stallman was a regular visitor to the X Consortium's offices; he would ask, in that persistent way he has, for X to change licenses. That was not an option, though; the X Consortium was supported by a group of corporations which was entirely happy with the MIT license. But in retrospect, Keith says, "Richard was right."
"

GPL is superior when companies have to work together, because they really _have_to_ work together.

Reply Score: 8

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

FreeBSD LOL Every FreeBSD "distro company" would have made its own proprietary extensions to their FreeBSD-distro. Companies are like that. That is why Unix died (ongoing process) and will be replaced by Linux.


You make it sound like Linux is leagues ahead of FreeBSD.

The main advantage of Linux over FreeBSD is hardware support which is more due to marketshare than the license.

I'm surprised by how well FreeBSD has done given the amount of investment into Linux by corporate tech giants. FreeBSD survives on a fraction of the budget yet is still the choice of many web hosts.

This idea that the GPL is needed for technical progression is a joke. There are plenty of examples that negate this belief.

The software world could easily survive without Linux. At the very least the sound problem would be fixed.

Reply Score: 3

dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

FreeBSD LOL

Every FreeBSD "distro company" would have made its own proprietary extensions to their FreeBSD-distro.


There is single FreeBSD and there is no need for hundreds of them, like in case of Linux, because FBSD is a complete operating system, not a bunch of random code thrown together. You may not want to believe it, but FBSD is doing okay and companies still use and support it (eg. Juniper). You just don't see it in the news every day, because it didn't become a religious movement just yet. ;)


Companies are like that. That is why Unix died (ongoing process) and will be replaced by Linux.


You seem to dig happily all the stuff journalists make up, but believe me, they have their regular production of annual buzzwords and "migration to Linux" is over. We have "The Cloud" today and some other BS no one really cares about tomorrow. Why not rather ask someone who works in a data center? We for example have consolidated lots of Linux servers to new AIX machines this year and replaced several Solaris machines with new Solaris ones. It is actually true, that IBM and HP would love to sell jut the hardware and have "the community" to make the OS for them, but it still is impossible because of one very simple reason: Linux is crap. Don't believe in some kind of "historical reasons". They would happily do the same thing that they did with Tru64 if Linux could do the job Unix is doing today.


GPL is superior when companies have to work together, because they really _have_to_ work together.


Do we really want this? With proprietary software you have competition. With open source you get something like cartel. Which one is better?

Reply Score: 1

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I'll explain my point again:
If there were no GPL and no Linux there would be lots of different JUNOS-like OSes and all of them would not share their code additions and the open source basis would progress at a much slower speed, as it happened with X.

That is what I meant, I might have been a bit unclear about that.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I'll explain my point again: If there were no GPL and no Linux there would be lots of different JUNOS-like OSes and all of them would not share their code additions and the open source basis would progress at a much slower speed, as it happened with X. That is what I meant, I might have been a bit unclear about that.


I find is hilarious that you make it sound like Linux has saved us from OS fragmentation when the Linux distros can't even agree on where system icons should be stored. The FreeBSD team provides a working OS, not a kernel that is dumped downstream without any care for what happens to it or how many tribal wars are caused by not defining things like sound frameworks.

I'm also not sure why you think the GPL is needed to prevent endless competing commercial forks when Apache is ubiquitous.

Reply Score: 3

kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I don't think it. Keith said so in the LWN article.
And Apache is not the best example. Apache is not shipped with hardware to most of its users. OSes often are and Apache has lots of proprietary forks (big hosters like 1&1, Strato etc. all have their own additions for apache, like Google has for Linux.)
So in that case the license does not matter (You would need AGPL for that to work.)

It all comes down to this:
Companies like to keep their work for themselves and have a proprietary competitive advantage because suits don't get the value of collaboration.

The value of collaboration is what the GPL taught the world.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: If FOSS is a success
by Dasher42 on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:57 UTC in reply to "RE: If FOSS is a success"
Dasher42 Member since:
2007-04-05

Right. I think the pragmatism that others are talking about is a luxury we can afford now that important pieces of IT are open, or at least have solid open alternatives. We wouldn't have Linux kernels and ODF file formats unless someone had insisted on an open playing field that would be bound to stay that way.

Yes, RMS is a zealot, but he's a zealot we need. I don't always agree with him, but I don't think his detractors would have the choices between free and proprietary software, or as many options to move data about, had it not been for insistence that imporant software which we depend on be free.

Reply Score: 3

what about...
by thebackwash on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:29 UTC
thebackwash
Member since:
2005-07-06

What I don't understand is the idea that the mere presence of proprietary software in any way diminishes the value of free software. One could claim that the *lack* of a viable free alternative is a hole in the free software quilt, and then the fault lies with the free software community (as a loosely-defined concept,) but some would rather point the finger.

Sure, I could see the issues people have with software patents, the DMCA, etc., but those are completely orthogonal to the existence of proprietary software, i.e. the concepts are well-defined and completely distinct.

Say there are 20 things that software can do, and that all the proprietary software in the world can do 18 of them, and all of the free software can do 18 of them, with the 2 things that each can't do different from the other. Those in the free software community, instead of bitching about how proprietary software is evil, should write the software to do those last two tasks. Then the onus will fall on the end user to decide how *free* he or she wishes to be. Likely, there will be no benefit realized by this freedom, so the choice will be made based on other factors

Sorry for such a pedantic response, but I can't help but feel that these two camps, the pragmatists, and the idealists, talk directly past each other without carefully stating their arguments.

Reply Score: 2

RE: what about... - where it leads
by jabbotts on Mon 14th Dec 2009 18:46 UTC in reply to "what about..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I think it's more about where it leads. We have Adobe's Flash player which is good enough so no one bothers writing a libre source flash player. The result is that we remain locked into Adobe's Flash player which may be fine for now but screw us all later. Now for this, one also has to assume that no developer will be motivated to write a libre Flash player simply because it's not motivated by a requirement to do so.

Personally, I will use the code that works. I'd prefer libre code but if the hardware is only supported through a closed binary module then I'll be limited to that until a community project becomes competitive. With ATI, that mean the community driver rather than ATI's borked code (previous to AMD buyout and specs release). With Nvidia, that means the closed binary that still managed to outperform the community driver on my system. With my XFI audio card, I'd be screwed for lack of a vendor provided driver if not for Creative being savvy enough to hand off driver source when they lost interest in developing it.

This touches on my belief that closed source hardware drivers are udder madness that benefits the end user in no way. Between vendor budgets going towards limited platform choices or vendors deciding that my hardware is too old for them to support leaving drivers unsupported; freaking madness. The hardware should be the product not the chunk of software that bridges it and the OS.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

This touches on my belief that closed source hardware drivers are udder madness that benefits the end user in no way.


They cause mad cow disease? Sorry couldn't resist.

Closed source drivers benefit the user by allowing the hardware to work. That's the only thing the user cares about in the first place.

You can give long speeches about how hardware companies should open all their drivers but that won't change the FACT that a lot of them don't want to. It doesn't even matter why since they make the hardware and you don't.

Furthermore NVIDIA has already explained how a lot of their driver contains intellectual property that they don't want to share with competitors. Operating system developers can choose to work with or against the needs of hardware companies and the Linux kernel devs have chose the latter. Not a wise strategy if your goal is to increase marketshare. How many years of the Linux desktop have we had so far?

Reply Score: 1

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

How many years of the Linux desktop have we had so far?


I'm on my 10th, and counting ;) I guess you meant your desktop, or someone else's, but I couldn't care less about what other people use.

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"We don't own the patents which allow us to provide driver source"

Great. So provide a generic hardware interface you can provide specs for. Let that chip run infront of the "secret sauce". Drivers can be written without risk of patent leak.

Allowing the hardware to function is the most minimal benefit. It limits what platforms can interact with that hardware (limits potential consumer base). It limits how long that hardware can work based on how long the vendor continues to develop drivers. It delays patching of critical and security related bugs.

In the case of Nvidia, they do provide a pretty solid driver and for lack of a competitive open driver, it works great. If the vendor can continue to develop a competitive driver including upkeep of bug and vulnerability patches then no worries. The bigger issue is companies which do not keep up with development or provide competitive performance to what reverse engineered community projects can provide; in that case the closed driver is a hindrance not a benefit. The hardware should be the product not the little chunk of software that limits it to a single platform.

And, in the end, are you seriously suggesting that if hardware vendors could provide detailed information, you would not see any benefit in that?

Reply Score: 2

Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

We have Adobe's Flash player which is good enough so no one bothers writing a libre source flash player. The result is that we remain locked into Adobe's Flash player which may be fine for now but screw us all later.


There are a couple of projects still (last I heard) working on this, like gnash & swfdec.

However, the impetus for an open player has gone down some because of Adobe's own improving behavior towards the FOSS world. I suspect their change of attitude was not altruistic, of course, but in fact coincided with MS's Silverlight, but still, they have/are improving and opening up Flash...

Reply Score: 1

Switch to Xfce...
by Caraibes on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:29 UTC
Caraibes
Member since:
2007-08-06

I finally made the switch to Xfce since about a month...

I believe there's too much politics going on in the Gnome project. I don't like Mono... I am a bit "iffy" when it comes to Gnome 3... I dislike KDE...

So there seems to be only one way for me: Xfce...

I have been a Gnome user since 2005.

I am on Xfce now (Xub 9.10), but still use some Gnome tools...

I heard Xfce 4.8 will have a better integration of "connect to server" in Thunar. Right now, using Gigolo is ok, but not as good as Nautilus...

But I will conclude like this: Xfce is the way !

Reply Score: 2

RE: Switch to Xfce...
by tylerdurden on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:39 UTC in reply to "Switch to Xfce..."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

How exactly do the politics of a project affect you if you are not a developer for said project? Sounds to me that if you are willing to change desktop environments because you are intransigent regarding the politics of the one you switched from... that looks a tad like projection to me, no?

Most of my issues with gnome come from a technical and usability standpoints. Politics is such an ethereal concept, that I have no idea how it permeates to the common user.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Switch to Xfce...
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:23 UTC in reply to "Switch to Xfce..."
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I believe there's too much politics going on in the Gnome project. I don't like Mono... I am a bit "iffy" when it comes to Gnome 3... I dislike KDE...


What, out of curiosity, do you thing Mono has to do with Gnome? Right now, there is one - just one - Mono-based application (Tomboy) officially included with Gnome. It's just an application, not part of infrastructure that everything else depends on. And it's easily replaced by GNote, a C++ equivalent for those unwilling or unable to use Mono.

Nor is there any serious talk by current GNOME leaders of integrating it further. For all the energy people expend screaming about the perils of Mono's creeping influence, it's really a non-issue. There are very few significant applications built in it, and even fewer that can't be replaced by less controversial equivalents. There's no desktop infrastructure that depends on it, nor any intention to build any. So why the fuss?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Switch to Xfce...
by Ed W. Cogburn on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Switch to Xfce..."
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

So why the fuss?


I suspect its because Miguel is just as much of a lightning-rod for controversy as RMS is. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Comment by LB06
by LB06 on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:34 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

It is my belief dat F/OSS should no longer try to promote itself by trying to outcast proprietary software by means of licenses, policies or by limiting free speech. But rather by showing that they are superior on actual merits.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It would truly be nice to see all products marketed based on what they do well rather than what mud the competition can be painted with. Sadly, it's as likely to happen in the marketing of retail software as it is to happen in the next presidential campaign tour.

Even if it where to happen on one side, eventually the other side's marketing spin would elicit a response which brings the "higher road" product defensively back to the mud pit.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by LB06
by Kalessin on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by LB06"
Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

I totally agree, but that's more of the OSS way of looking at things than Free Software. Folks like Linus talk about how OSS produces better software. In such a case, it makes perfect sense for them to try to prove that.

The problem is that for the Free Software movement and folks like RMS, it's not a question of better software. It's a question of morals. RMS believes that you have a moral right to the source code of anything you run on your computer. As such, he considers proprietary software to be immoral and evil. Whether free software or proprietary software has better code is irrelevant to his views. He'd rather have a poorly written free software program than a stellar proprietary program any day.

Now, if the FOSS folks - be they OSS or Free Software - are going to get the majority of the world using FOSS, then they do indeed have to show that they can produce superior code because what most people care about is a product that works, not the license it uses.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by LB06
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by LB06"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

It is my belief dat F/OSS should no longer try to promote itself by trying to outcast proprietary software by means of licenses, policies or by limiting free speech. But rather by showing that they are superior on actual merits.


Congratulations and welcome to 1998. You've just reinvented Open Source Software!

Some people creating Free Software got together and came up with a way to sell it to companies: pure pragmatism. "Don't worry about the Freedom stuff, think of it as Open instead. The advantage is pragmatic: Openness makes things better, cheaper."

And so here we are with a large number of people who have forgotten. They have forgotten that Open Source is just what we call it when we pitch it to companies, it's *all* Free Software in the end and we like it *because* it's Free Software.

People will continue to promote Free Software as Open Source, because on a practical level this works far better. People (usually *other* people) will continue advocating and promoting Free Software--which is largely the same thing, but for different reasons.

Nothing will or should change here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by LB06
by google_ninja on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by LB06"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The open source community has grown quite a bit passed that though. Linus has said a whole bunch of times he doesn't give a crap about FSF ideals, he just likes the license. The python and ruby communities tend to be against the FSF, and will rag on anyone who releases a library under the GPL rather then an MIT-ish license. The apache foundation was pure pragmatism, created by a bunch of companies. There is an extremely vibrant open source community in the java and .net worlds that is very corporate and enterprise-y in nature, and rarely has anything to do with freedom.

If the line is drawn at idealism, I would argue that the open source camp at this point is quite a bit larger then the free software camp. If Idealism is ignored, then there is no divide at all, people pretty much get along fine. Except when something like this happens, the catalyst always seems to be RMS weighing in on a topic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by LB06
by sorpigal on Thu 17th Dec 2009 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by LB06"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

For every example you can site on one side I can site one on the other side.

Whether Open Source guys like it or not they all support Free Software when they choose a GPL-compatible license. Thus, vocally supported or not, the Free Software camp is by definition larger.

The employee some company paid to fix a bug in Apache? He's supporting the FSF whether he wants to or not.

Since it's not about ideology for them they do not note the fact, but the end result is the same.

FYI, Linus never cared about the license. GPLv2 was the second license he used for Linux; the first one was something along the lines of "Do what you like, send patches back to me so I can include them." As I understand it he figured the GPL gave him the same thing with some actual legal teeth. The ideology of it was never on the radar.

Reply Score: 2

Greatest threat to FSF is RMS.
by Kishe on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:39 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

They should choose someone even lightly moderate as spokesperson of FSF.

As is, FSF is to FOSS community what Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Greatest threat to FSF is RMS.
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:23 UTC in reply to "Greatest threat to FSF is RMS."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Are you crazy?

The Westboro church promotes violence against people who do or believe certain things they don't like. They tell people who disagree with them that those people are loathsome and disgusting, and a variety of personally insulting things of that nature.

The FSF, and RMS, ask that you not use proprietary software. Politely, as a rule. Occasionally some strong wording is used (e.g. anti-social) but no people are condemned.

What is the problem with that?

Reply Score: 2

Rigged
by vivainio on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:51 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

The questionaire seems to be seriously rigged against RMS.

Moderating p.g.o might make sense - not by blocking contributors, but perhaps by some kind of "report abuse" button that would remove the offending post after moderator review.

Of course that would be a bit STASI/thought police, but the line of "offending" could be drawn quite high. I guess Miguel overstepped a little bit by advertising Silverlight, but I see absolutely no issue talking about proprietary software in general.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Rigged
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 16:52 UTC in reply to "Rigged"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

The questionaire seems to be seriously rigged against RMS.

Of course, it's by Lefty Schlesinger.

Reply Score: 2

Gnome should stay with GNU
by satan666 on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:00 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

Splitting Gnome from GNU is not the right solution.
The right solution is to entirely remove Mono from Gnome.
Mono should be just like Java. No more no less.
Why are there Mono applications included in Gnome by default?
Why is tomboy hosted at www.gnome.org?
Maybe they should change the name Gnome for Gmono. That would be more appropriate I guess.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gnome should stay with GNU
by diegoviola on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:54 UTC in reply to "Gnome should stay with GNU"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

Splitting Gnome from GNU is not the right solution.
The right solution is to entirely remove Mono from Gnome.
Mono should be just like Java. No more no less.
Why are there Mono applications included in Gnome by default?
Why is tomboy hosted at www.gnome.org?
Maybe they should change the name Gnome for Gmono. That would be more appropriate I guess.


I agree, they should remove Miguel from the GNOME land as well.

Good thing that KDE exist.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gnome should stay with GNU
by Ed W. Cogburn on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:32 UTC in reply to "Gnome should stay with GNU"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

Mono should be just like Java. No more no less.


Mono/.NET will never be just like Java. It can't.

Java is a true cross-platform environment and its more 'Free' than .NET will ever be since its not only GPL'd, and a fully open spec, but you don't need to worry about patent issues, or its sole corporate master turning on you (because Java no longer has a single corporate master).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Gnome should stay with GNU
by cb_osn on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnome should stay with GNU"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

Mono/.NET will never be just like Java. It can't.

Quite right. Java has serious deployment issues and a very poor legacy interop story. Which is why it was DOA on the desktop.

Reply Score: 2

Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

Quite right. Java has serious deployment issues and a very poor legacy interop story. Which is why it was DOA on the desktop.


Java is not DOA on my desktop (works fine), but .NET most certainly is, since I don't run Windows.

'cross-platform' != 'Windows-only'

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Gnome should stay with GNU
by cb_osn on Tue 15th Dec 2009 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Gnome should stay with GNU"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

Java is not DOA on my desktop (works fine), but .NET most certainly is, since I don't run Windows.

Of course, this ignores the fact that there is no developer interest in producing desktop applications in Java. So while I'm sure that you have no trouble running a JVM, testing out all the Swing widget style examples, and occasionally fulfilling masochistic urges by running Eclipse, there really isn't much useful, productive, or entertaining software developed on the platform in the context of the desktop.

'cross-platform' != 'Windows-only'

I can't quite see where I suggested such a thing.

Reply Score: 2

Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

Of course, this ignores the fact that there is no developer interest in producing desktop applications


You were the one who first referred to the 'desktop'. From a Windows-centric POV, it does look like Java is 'DOA on the desktop', but Windows isn't the only desktop out there.

As for 'developer interest', I really don't care. Since .NET is not an option for me, it doesn't matter how many developers are targeting it versus Java.

Devs who only care about Windows will use .NET, but devs who want to reach other platforms will have to look beyond .NET, and for x-platform support, Java is one of the options they can use.

Java works on *my* desktop while .NET doesn't, so Java is not 'DOA on the desktop' from my POV.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Gnome should stay with GNU
by cb_osn on Tue 15th Dec 2009 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Gnome should stay with GNU"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

You were the one who first referred to the 'desktop'. From a Windows-centric POV, it does look like Java is 'DOA on the desktop', but Windows isn't the only desktop out there.

Yes, I chose to clearly define the context of my argument and it is that argument that you are challenging.

Windows isn't the only desktop out there, but there are no desktops where Java has any significant penetration.

As for non Windows-centric .NET, Ubuntu comes with Tomboy, F-Spot, and Banshee by default, and many users install GNOME Do. All of which are .NET applications.

Where are these cross platform Java apps that are in wide use?

As for 'developer interest', I really don't care.

Developer interest is important because the developers provide the applications and without applications, a platform is essentially useless to a user.

for x-platform support, Java is one of the options they can use.

Clearly, the developers feel differently. They are not using Java.

Java works on *my* desktop while .NET doesn't, so Java is not 'DOA on the desktop' from my POV.

I'm curious. Which desktop are you running where Mono doesn't work?

Reply Score: 2

czayas
Member since:
2009-04-09

I am a little tired of comparisons of Free Software advocacy with religion. A religious person is one that believes in something without physical evidence, frequently irrational stuff. I think that proprietary software developers always tried to make us believe stuff like this, such as during the 80s when proprietary software was something that should be used as a book. Now we must consider proprietary software as part of the hardware. I support free software because it seems a rational approach to the software, as opposed to proprietary software that attempts to create artificial scarcity protected by legal measures that often stifle innovation. Remember that RMS is a practicing atheist, Saint IGNUcius is a parody act. Please, stop comparing the FSF with a religious organization. The proprietary software industry seems more appropriate for this comparison. And with this approach, the BSA would be the Holy Inquisition.

Reply Score: 5

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

as well as the absolute adherence to an ideal without tolerance of dissent.

RMS also provides a utopic plan and a moral guideline for followers.

I'd actually compare it to a cult since it was created by a single person who expects everyone to follow his will.

But the fact that they have a website describing Windows 7 as sinful says enough.
http://en.windows7sins.org/

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Any topic can be considered religiously. I wouldn't limit it to recognized religions or cults (unrecognized religions). FS ideals and the broken form of Capitalism that retail software competes in are both taken to the point of religion by some within. Talk to a business grad who's entire world revolves around the idea that capitalism results in the highest profit from the best product based on consumer choice. You'll find equally little room for "what if" scenarios with that particular topic taken to the extreme of religious belief.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Any topic can be considered religiously. I wouldn't limit it to recognized religions or cults (unrecognized religions).


Stallman goes well beyond individual fanaticism by creating a movement that has followers who push his fanatical beliefs. He also provides his own newspeak definition of 'freedom' which he wraps his whole ideological framework in.

He has created a movement that expects absolute devotion to his goals. His own carefully crafted definition of 'freedom' supersedes any criticism or concern. Adherence to the ONE TRUE WAY is the solution to everything. It's a tech cult.

Reply Score: 1

fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

as well as the absolute adherence to an ideal without tolerance of dissent.

RMS also provides a utopic plan and a moral guideline for followers.

I'd actually compare it to a cult since it was created by a single person who expects everyone to follow his will.

But the fact that they have a website describing Windows 7 as sinful says enough.
http://en.windows7sins.org/


I believe that his site is incomplete. NVIDIA , Imagination Technologies, Broadcom and SiS are also sinful. But you don't say anything because you are a windows troll.

If they published how to use their hardware (NOT HOW IT IS CONSTRUCTED) (charging the users accordingly to implemented standards) then they could have windows drivers for the luxury of windows users. But their attitude is not only sinful, it is also anti-competitive. They kill other platforms because they want to control how to use their silly machines.. wake up we are approaching 2010, have you heard about standards?

Personally I would have no problem with Windows if they implemented device support with standards, not with standardized OS specific software APIs (like USB mass storage). I believe this is what RMS is saying. He has no problem with Word if it is interoperable and I am sure that he would not have any problem with advertisements. But the situation is bad, the devices with small exceptions and office software implement no standards and this is cough...cough.. llegal ... cough...cough anticompetitive also to GNU/FSF. He does not want proprietary software.It is a matter of choice ....

.... but is it really with non-stanardized HW and not standards compatible software? He is angry with the situation and he has all the right to be.

Reply Score: 2

pulse301 Member since:
2009-09-03

Why should Microsoft have to make any word documents interoperable with any other office suite? You do realize that they own Microsoft Word, right? This is not "Miracle Word" (gotta love Atlas Shrugged references). I'm not understanding what is illegal about creating proprietary software or hardware. Can you elaborate? I think your explanations were hidden by coughs or something...

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I believe that his site is incomplete. NVIDIA , Imagination Technologies, Broadcom and SiS are also sinful. But you don't say anything because you are a windows troll.


I'm not a Windows troll, I'm against a movement that runs around defaming proprietary developers of all sizes when FOSS developers cannot even provide 1% of the software that is needed for our modern world to operate.

Stallman believes that writing proprietary software is a criminal act. Thus writing proprietary software that helps the disabled is a criminal act. Even if you are clearly helping the disabled you are still evil since you aren't providing the source.

That's insane.

Stallman is a loon. Follow him at your own peril.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Stallman believes that writing proprietary software is a criminal act.

Stallman believes that writing proprietary software is an *immoral* act which he'd make illegal if he could. Get your facts straight. ;-)

Personally, I got my fill of all that in the 80's with Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jerry_Falwell_portrait.jpg

Edited 2009-12-14 20:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ugg...
by poundsmack on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:09 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

there is nothing wrong with those companies posting on the planet gnome website. the free software foundation needs to realize its not all or nothing, in the software eco system both free and non free apps will exist and there is no reason why the discussion of non free apps should be banned from the planet gnome site...

Reply Score: 2

RE: ugg...
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 19:35 UTC in reply to "ugg..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

the free software foundation needs to realize its not all or nothing, in the software eco system both free and non free apps will exist

And why is that? Look what happened to FOSS in the last 15 years. It moved from a small idea into a mass movement.

FOSS desktop environments do no longer try to catch up with Microsoft or Apple, they are at the forefront now.

Today, most cellphones run on Free Software, be it either some incarnation of Linux (Android, ALP,...) or Symbian.

These days pretty much every piece of mainstream PC hardware works right out of the box with FOSS drivers under Linux.
Why's that? It's because of the relentless work from organizations like FSF and OpenBSD that made that possible.

Proprietary software is not a god-given law, just like there is no need for monarchy.

Reply Score: 4

Ingrates.
by JMcCarthy on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:19 UTC
JMcCarthy
Member since:
2005-08-12

Seriously. GNOME is a GNU project -- always has been. If you don't like it, move along. Trying to appropriate it is digusting. What makes this whole farce even more laughable is developers (KDE) getting into bed with then proprietary software was they very reason GNOME was created.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:38 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

the original post by De Icaza is smart and even visionary, and the topic is simply mono and moonlight. any open source shriveled penis who gets angry about that should climb a mountain.

edit: that said, to say "[Planet GNOME] should not invite people to talk about their proprietary software projects just because they are also GNOME contributors" is perfectly reasonable, and I agree that Planet aggregators should filter out unrelated blog posts rather than "display everyone's full blog feed as it represents them". That said said, De Icaza's post is related enough to GNOME and should be included.

Edited 2009-12-14 17:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Luminair
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

That said said, De Icaza's post is related enough to GNOME and should be included.


Which part was related to GNOME? I only read about Mono and Moonlight/Silverlight apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Mon 14th Dec 2009 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

mono itself is related enough to gnome IMO, and I'd probably say the same if he posted about C++ theory. but I'm not angry if you disagree

IMO a recipe for chili and administration tips for vmware ESX are the kinds of things to leave out, not miguel talking about gui software

Edited 2009-12-14 18:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

mono itself is related enough to gnome IMO, and I'd probably say the same if he posted about C++ theory. but I'm not angry if you disagree


To me GNOME is GLib, GIO/GVFS, GTK+, Clutter, D-Bus, GStreamer, the HIG, etc. and open to any runtime environment (including Mono, but not just Mono). If Icaza wants a better GUI toolkit he should help improving GTK+ (make it more cross-platform, add declarative UI support, etc.) and bind it to his favourite runtime environment, but IIRC he was the first one against GTK+ 3.0.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by rbenchley on Mon 14th Dec 2009 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
rbenchley Member since:
2005-11-03

]IMO a recipe for chili and administration tips for vmware ESX are the kinds of things to leave out, not miguel talking about gui software

The only thing PlanetGnome has to do with the Gnome project is that it is comprised of posts from the blogs of individuals who are prominent member of the Gnome community. The content is not restricted to information about the Gnome project (which is readily available throughout the Gnome website), and might contain posts on hobbies, opinions, musings, pet peeves and other personal items that you might find on anyone's blog.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

The only thing PlanetGnome has to do with the Gnome project is that it is comprised of posts from the blogs of individuals who are prominent member of the Gnome community.


Right, which is why RMS's demands are ridiculous in this case. PG isn't an official mouthpiece for the Gnome Foundation, it's simply what people affiliated with Gnome feel like talking about.

Reply Score: 2

Personal belief
by canadianlinuxnerd on Mon 14th Dec 2009 17:44 UTC
canadianlinuxnerd
Member since:
2006-06-14

The following is my personal belief, firstly I have a great deal of respect for RMS, and anyone in either the the free software or the open source community should be in awe of RMS's accomplishments, as neither community would exist without his work. Personally I probably fall on the Free Software side. That said I also believe that one of the core values held in common by both communities is that of free expression, so I will defend to the death both Migel's right to drone on about proprietary software I will never use and RMS's right to bore me to tears with his explanation of why Migel should have to drone on somewhere else. Then like most sensible people I will choose to ignore them both, I only hope the Gnome Foundation will join me in doing so, as splitting from GNU would split the community and listening to RMS would leave Planet GNOME a poorer less interesting place.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

since it is filled with proprietary code.

Stallman should be truly consistent with his beliefs and completely free himself from proprietary software which means living in the woods and playing with an abacus.


For he shall give us the Freedoms that he hath defined for us to follow in accordance with his own will.
GPL 3:42

Reply Score: 2

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

since it is filled with proprietary code.

That's why the FSF (among other organizations) is lobbying for Free hardware ("Free" not in term of "at no cost", but freely accessible specifications).

Considering that AMD releases all specifications these days, Intel develops most drivers in the open, there are SPARC CPUs by Sun whose blueprints are GPLed, ect., I guess that quite a lot has already been achieved in terms of "Free" hardware.

Reply Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Considering that AMD releases all specifications these days, Intel develops most drivers in the open, there are SPARC CPUs by Sun whose blueprints are GPLed, ect., I guess that quite a lot has already been achieved in terms of "Free" hardware.


I'm not even talking about drivers. I'm talking about hard-encoded software that all hardware contains.

But next time you visit a hospital make sure you demand open source medical equipment that follows Stallman's definition of Freedom. Don't let those evil proprietary machines touch your body. Die with your Freedoms* that Stallman has created for you.

*see Book of GPL for full newspeak definition

Reply Score: 1

DaCveTuX Member since:
2009-12-14

"Considering that AMD releases all specifications these days, Intel develops most drivers in the open, there are SPARC CPUs by Sun whose blueprints are GPLed, ect., I guess that quite a lot has already been achieved in terms of "Free" hardware.


I'm not even talking about drivers. I'm talking about hard-encoded software that all hardware contains.

But next time you visit a hospital make sure you demand open source medical equipment that follows Stallman's definition of Freedom. Don't let those evil proprietary machines touch your body. Die with your Freedoms* that Stallman has created for you.

*see Book of GPL for full newspeak definition
"


Well you know that what you write is just sad and because of the proprietary medical equipment and proprietary drugs many countries in the world can not afford that and people are actually dieing? I mean, this is the "MAIN" reason in the software land why free software was founded in the first place - to share freedom to have.

If it would be implemented into the medical industry that would be a major breakthrough. And I am not talking about generics or "chinese forks", I am talking about free medicine and medi(whatever) development.

Think about it.

Edited 2009-12-14 20:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

If it would be implemented into the medical industry that would be a major breakthrough. And I am not talking about generics or "chinese forks", I am talking about free medicine and medi(whatever) development. Think about it.


Making the software that runs MRI scanners open source would not result in free medicine. It still takes money to build the machines, pay the programmers to maintain the software, etc.

Life saving technologies often take investments that need to be recouped through sales. You can sit and bemoan this reality but YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING AN ALTERNATIVE.

Let's have an example:

Company A provides a life-saving proprietary software product that they charge for.

Company B provides nothing useful and lives on credit but points their finger at company A for charging and keeping the solution proprietary.

According to Stallman Company B is in fact more ethical even though they produce nothing and save zero lives. Company A is in fact evil for not providing the source. That is retarded.

Reply Score: 1

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

[Making the software that runs MRI scanners open source would not result in free medicine. It still takes money to build the machines, pay the programmers to maintain the software, etc.


No, but it might make producing MRI scanners *cheaper* which would mean more hospitals could afford more... which would not be a bad thing.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No, but it might make producing MRI scanners *cheaper* which would mean more hospitals could afford more... which would not be a bad thing.


Only in the sense that by giving away intellectual property you devalue your product (along with your company) by giving secrets out to your competitors who can then reproduce your product without having to recoup research costs.

But for highly specialized hardware like an MRI scanner publishing the source would likely have no effect unless you published your hardware schematics as well, which could easily destroy your company which also means closing off further capital for future investments.

Giving away intellectual property can benefit consumers in the short term by allowing cheap clones but will harm them in the long term by closing off capital needed for research and development. It takes a highly skilled and organized team to create the schematics and software for something like an MRI scanner. By providing the source you allow a Chinese factory to undercut the development team who provided the majority of the work and funding. The GPL doesn't account for this gross imbalance. It just declares closed source to be unethical without regard for how the vast majority of software development is funded.

To Stallman the state-owned Chinese cloning corp is ethically superior to a small proprietary US startup that produces life-saving, innovate software. In fact Stallman would take joy in hearing about a small proprietary software company go bankrupt thanks to their source being stolen and put on the internet. It's a twisted ideology that puts Stallman's desire to see proprietary software destroyed above all else.

He's a resentful prick that pushes his own definition of "Freedom" which is just a guise for his underlying desire to destroy the proprietary software business model along with the hard work of others.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" No, but it might make producing MRI scanners *cheaper* which would mean more hospitals could afford more... which would not be a bad thing.
Only in the sense that by giving away intellectual property you devalue your product (along with your company) by giving secrets out to your competitors who can then reproduce your product without having to recoup research costs. But for highly specialized hardware like an MRI scanner publishing the source would likely have no effect unless you published your hardware schematics as well, which could easily destroy your company which also means closing off further capital for future investments. Giving away intellectual property can benefit consumers in the short term by allowing cheap clones but will harm them in the long term by closing off capital needed for research and development. It takes a highly skilled and organized team to create the schematics and software for something like an MRI scanner. By providing the source you allow a Chinese factory to undercut the development team who provided the majority of the work and funding. The GPL doesn't account for this gross imbalance. It just declares closed source to be unethical without regard for how the vast majority of software development is funded. To Stallman the state-owned Chinese cloning corp is ethically superior to a small proprietary US startup that produces life-saving, innovate software. In fact Stallman would take joy in hearing about a small proprietary software company go bankrupt thanks to their source being stolen and put on the internet. It's a twisted ideology that puts Stallman's desire to see proprietary software destroyed above all else. He's a resentful prick that pushes his own definition of "Freedom" which is just a guise for his underlying desire to destroy the proprietary software business model along with the hard work of others. "

For a saner, more balanced view, one could read about buisness co-operatives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative

A cooperative (also co-operative; often referred to as a co-op or coop) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. It is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.


The actual aim of Free Software is to promote the four freedoms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software#Definition
The first formal definition of free software was published by FSF in February 1986. That definition, written by Richard Stallman, is still maintained today and states that software is free software if people who receive a copy of the software have the following four freedoms:

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.


I don't see anything written in there about destroying small commercial startup proprietary software companies.

The aims of Free Software apply to Free Software. The aim is to always keep as Free software that software which the authors release as Free Software in the first place. The aim is collaboration, to make that Free Software better.

Free Sotware is a co-operative enterprise. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours, and we both gain a scratched back. It is also about barter, with source code as the currency, instead of conventional money.

Rational people don't have any problem at all with the concepts of co-operatives, collaboration and barter.

PS: If the GNOME Foundation board wants to move GNOME towards a more proprietary orientation, that is fine and dandy, it is simply a matter that following such a move then GNOME should no longer depict itself as Free Software.

Edited 2009-12-15 00:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

His goals are not ours.
by visceral monkey on Mon 14th Dec 2009 18:58 UTC
visceral monkey
Member since:
2006-08-12

Seriously, he has his followers, but his religious fervor has no place anymore. Like the fundamentalists of old, he needs to be driven from civilized society and forgotten.

And free software on the same level as human rights? Anyone who believes this does a great disservice to the real thing. I hope they dump GNU and move into a brighter future for GNOME.

Reply Score: 1

Ironic
by J.R. on Mon 14th Dec 2009 19:06 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

For someone who claim to fight for freedom, Stallman sure likes censorship.


This is why I prefer BSD over GPL. No political ideology bullshit, just the freedom to use the software, even proprietary.

Edited 2009-12-14 19:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ironic
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 19:54 UTC in reply to "Ironic"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

For someone who claim to fight for freedom, Stallman sure likes censorship.

Every democratic state does censorship. For example in many countries denying the holocaust is a serious crime.
The reasoning behind such laws is that spreading such Nazi propaganda hurts a free society more than selective censorship.

This is why I prefer BSD over GPL. No political ideology bullshit, just the freedom to use the software, even proprietary.

BSD is pure ideology. It's just a different kind. BSD is anarchy in its pure sense (not that anarchy=chaos crap).
Anarchy is just the belief that a free and open society also works without rules.
In BSD's case: Nobody should be "forced" to act in a free matter, but that beneficiaries of BSD code should act in a healthy way by free will.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ironic
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:33 UTC in reply to "Ironic"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02


This is why I prefer BSD over GPL. No political ideology bullshit, just the freedom to use the software, even proprietary.


If BSD has no ideology bullshit, why is there an effort underway to write a BSD-licensed C compiler? What's wrong with GCC? That's right, it's GPL'd! Hello ideology.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Ironic
by YEPHENAS on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Ironic"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

If BSD has no ideology bullshit, why is there an effort underway to write a BSD-licensed C compiler? What's wrong with GCC? That's right, it's GPL'd! Hello ideology.


LLVM/Clang is not about the license. It's about better optimizations and a clearer code base.

Reply Score: 1

Ideology & IT
by Junius on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ironic"
Junius Member since:
2009-10-25

Hello everyone, I'm a long time lurker here and love osnews for just this kind of spirited debate. I'd just like to say a few words about the ideological aspect of this issue if I may.

I'm currently half way through the third of my four year Politics & International Relations degree so I spend a lot of time reading about and considering ideology (or pretending to at least) and this discussion reminded me of the sociologist Daniel Bell's work: The End of Ideology where he argues that the concept of ideology is no longer relevant to people.

Yes he was talking about political ideology there but I'm detecting similar sentiments here in relation to F/OSS; it seems that many people here and in the wider community (or did we conclude that there is no community :p) regard ideology as superficial, academic rhetoric with no practical merit; which I suppose to a degree it is; but consider where we would be without it...

I'll say now that when it comes to computing I am not too swayed by ideology, I tend to side with Linus and use the best tool for the job. In my case that is Linux because it allows me to learn for free and tap into the wealth of knowledge within the community. I don't feel dirty inside when I have to use Windows(R) on the Uni computers; despite only ever using Linux since my first computer (with the exception of my miggy :p)

This being said consider where we would be without ideology: No classical liberalism = no english enlightenment = no separation of church and state = no scientific or academic advances = no modern day life as we know it. Yes that's an exaggeration but you see where I'm going right?

You could argue that if it wasn't for people like RS and the FSF with their firm ideological beliefs there would have been no GNU and consequentially no Linux (or at least not as we know it.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is: even if you're not RS's biggest fan (which I am not) don't attack him for sticking to his ideological guns because it takes esoteric, academic types like him to get the ball rolling. As far as I'm concerned ideology should always be welcome in computing; as well as common sense.

Just as an interesting aside my head of school Tim Ingold recently did an ethnographic study of the open source 'movement' and talks a lot about the community and culture; well worth a read if you can find a copy.

Apologies for rambling.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ironic
by Ed W. Cogburn on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ironic"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

LLVM/Clang is not about the license. It's about better optimizations and a clearer code base.


That is not what the GP was referring to. Ideology does not seem that important to LLVM devs (and many of them are also working on clang), but I've seen some of the comments by BSD folks about replacing GCC, and it is most definitely ideology that is driving the move by the BSD folks towards clang.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ironic
by boldingd on Tue 15th Dec 2009 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ironic"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I was under the impression that a lot of the motivation behind LLVM had to do with Apple wanting an a compiler over which they had control. They can't control GCC: if they want to introduce a new language-feature, the GCC team will probably tell them to screw themselves. The LLVM team, on the other hand, will be much more receptive, since Apple is one of their major patrons.

Note that I don't mean to make that sound duplicitous or manipulative or sinister on Apple's part.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ironic
by vivainio on Tue 15th Dec 2009 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ironic"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

They can't control GCC: if they want to introduce a new language-feature, the GCC team will probably tell them to screw themselves.


Well, they could maintain patches or a branch of gcc.

GPL3 license isn't really to their liking. Which, I guess, is as good a reason as any to move to GPL3 at accelerated schedule ;-).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ironic
by Ed W. Cogburn on Wed 16th Dec 2009 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ironic"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

I was under the impression that a lot of the motivation behind LLVM had to do with Apple wanting an a compiler over which they had control.


Probably true, and why Apple hired Chris Lattner (and some of the others involved?). LLVM however existed for quite some time before Apple got involved. They didn't create it, LLVM came out of Chris's University/Thesis work. By 'LLVM devs' I was referring to the main ones like Chris who seem largely apolitical on the whole matter (aside from choosing a more liberal license to begin with).

They can't control GCC


No, it is the GPL3 that Apple doesn't like. Up until that, they seemed to have no problem with gcc (they maintained their own separate branch of gcc anyway).

The LLVM team, on the other hand, will be much more receptive


Naturally, a receptive LLVM team is easy to get if you can hire the brains at the top. ;)

Make no mistake though, Apple's involvement is only because of LLVM's more liberal license.

Note that I don't mean to make that sound duplicitous or manipulative or sinister on Apple's part.


Apple's dislike of the GPL3 is well-known.

The only question now is whether their involvement with LLVM ends up in the long run making it an Apple-only technology, barely used outside of their own ecosystem, much like Objective C.

Personally, I hope not, I would love for a modern compiler development system like LLVM to become as ubiquitous as gcc itself. Anyone interested in doing a new language for example, has very few options for how to do the actual backend code generation, as gcc itself was never designed to be a flexible and easy-to-grok backend for others (and still isn't).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Ironic
by boldingd on Thu 17th Dec 2009 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ironic"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Apple's dislike of the GPL3 is well-known.


I was under the impression that being able to steer the compiler's development was more important than getting access to nicely-BSD'ed code (tho both would obviously be important). I haven't heard about Apple hating the GPLv3 in particular -- more than GPLv2 or other non-BSD-style licenses, anyway. Why would they hate GPLv3 in particular?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ironic
by vivainio on Thu 17th Dec 2009 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ironic"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


I was under the impression that being able to steer the compiler's development was more important than getting access to nicely-BSD'ed code (tho both would obviously be important). I haven't heard about Apple hating the GPLv3 in particular -- more than GPLv2 or other non-BSD-style licenses, anyway. Why would they hate GPLv3 in particular?


From http://etoileos.com/news/archive/2008/05/12/1719/


Recently, GCC switched to GPLv3. Apple corporate policy is that they will not touch GPLv3 code, and so the Apple branch is now a fork of GCC 4.2. Features added to GNU GCC will not find their way into Apple GCC and vice versa, unless explicitly licensed in a compatible way by their contributor.


You'd probably need to do some research to find out why this is exactly, but I imagine iPhone to be the problem.

Edited 2009-12-17 11:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ironic
by sorpigal on Thu 17th Dec 2009 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ironic"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

The only question now is whether their involvement with LLVM ends up in the long run making it an Apple-only technology, barely used outside of their own ecosystem, much like Objective C.


I think this would be highly unlikely. LLVM is good stuff and not going to go anywhere. In a worst case scenario gcc incorporate large amounts of it and it will live on that way (but I don't think it will come to that.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ironic
by Ed W. Cogburn on Fri 18th Dec 2009 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ironic"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

In a worst case scenario gcc incorporate large amounts of it


I think that would be the *best* case scenario, but I've heard nothing so far about anything of LLVM ever making it into GCC, mainly because LLVM is C++ and GCC is C.

There's a GCC branch to fix/modify GCC so that it can be compiled with a C++ compiler, but I don't know how far they intend to take that if/once its merged back to mainline.

As an example, GCC's LTO feature was created after the advent of LLVM, yet its an independent (in C) implementation of the feature. As long as GCC is primarily developed in C, its very unlikely its devs would (or even *can*, considering the differences between C++ and C) borrow anything from LLVM.

but I don't think it will come to that.


What I fear is Apple's influence preventing LLVM from becoming as portable as GCC is, not necessarily due to any explicit action on their part, but merely due to their (obvious, but understandable) lack of interest in non-Apple hardware.

Objective C is an example here. Apple only really makes sure their version of GCC (with their ObjC) works on their systems, they've never tried very hard to make sure ObjC works in GNU's GCC on all the other platforms that GNU's GCC works on. This is why the ObjC in GNU's GCC is currently out of date compared to the ObjC implementation in Apple's GCC - and that was the case before GNU's GCC went to GPL3.

Apple simply has never shown any interest beyond their own playground, for better or worse.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ironic
by sorpigal on Thu 17th Dec 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ironic"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I refer you to this

http://pcc.ludd.ltu.se/

http://www.osnews.com/story/18621/BSD-Licensed_C_Compiler_Added_to_...

http://www.osnews.com/story/18771/More_on_OpenBSD_s_New_Compiler

Pay attention, especially, to the comments in the osnews stories where the BSD users positively glow about the idea of getting rid of the GPL'd GCC.

They'll be using some LLVM stuff, I hear, but it's still writing a replacement for GCC for ideological reasons.

Edited 2009-12-17 19:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Free software is alive and well
by wannabe geek on Mon 14th Dec 2009 19:12 UTC
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27

This advice that the FSF should "grow up", leave Stallman behind and embrace proprietary software sounds so old and tired. It's the same thing Eric Raymond and others were saying in the nineties, and where are they now? In contrast, Richard Stallman, the FSF and the GPL are much more relevant today than all their critics put together.


You may not agree with them, but it's absurd to expect them to "adapt" by betraying their ideals. I'm not saying no-one in the FOSS camp should care about interoperation with proprietary software, but it's definitely not part of the FSF's job, which is to promote free software.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the FSF to have a policy against promotion of proprietary software for the GNU project. If GNOME developers disagree, which is also their right, they should stop being officially part of the GNU project, even if little is changed in practice.

As an aside, the only objection I have with rms is that I would prefer his position on IP to be a little more principled, consistent and comprehensive (yes, seriously!). But that's beside the point.

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This advice that the FSF should "grow up", leave Stallman behind and embrace proprietary software


Embrace prop...? What have you been reading? Where did anyone say that?

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Embrace prop...? What have you been reading? Where did anyone say that?

Indeed. It's just that an increasing number of people are recognizing that Stallman is a loon. A charismatic loon, admittedly. But a loon nonetheless.

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

No. The pool of people using Free software is getting bigger and as it does a certain percentage decide that RMS is a loon. A certain percentage of the new people also support him.

I've rarely seen someone change from an RMS supporter to an RMS-is-a-loon guy.

Reply Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I've rarely seen someone change from an RMS supporter to an RMS-is-a-loon guy.

I did. It was around about 1998.

At any rate, and strictly speaking, an increasing number of people are recognizing that RMS is a loon. And an enemy can do as much damage as 10 converts can make up for. Likely somewhat more.

Edited 2009-12-14 21:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

"This advice that the FSF should "grow up", leave Stallman behind and embrace proprietary software


Embrace prop...? What have you been reading? Where did anyone say that?
"

Hi, Thom. I'm talking about this quote:


This GNOME issue is about that. Many within the GNOME project believe that in order for the platform to survive and move forward, it needs to interoperate with proprietary software, whether they personally would use such software or not. This is a new reality that RMS doesn't seem to understand; he's still holding on to the days of yore when it was "us vs. them", and he's trying to impose this outdated way of thinking on the FSF and the GNU Project and its members - like GNOME.

The FSF needs to change. It needs to face the new reality, i.e., one wherein most people (developers) within the F/OSS community recognise the necessity for interoperability and cooperation with established proprietary software vendors. F/OSS is no longer developer-centric - it has become user-centric. It seems like RMS is oblivious to this change in perspective.


By "embrace" I mean, of course, accept it and try to cooperate with it, as opposed to striving for its gradual elimination or irrelevance.

For instance, see:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Embracing

3)To include as part of something broader.
4) To take up willingly or eagerly: embrace a social cause.

So, I mean "embrace" mainly as in #3 (to include proprietary software in their long-term plans).

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, I mean "embrace" mainly as in #3 (to include proprietary software in their long-term plans).


And yet, is exactly this "embracing" that has propelled FOSS into the mainstream.

Despite the FSF.

Reply Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

"So, I mean "embrace" mainly as in #3 (to include proprietary software in their long-term plans).


And yet, is exactly this "embracing" that has propelled FOSS into the mainstream.

Despite the FSF.
"

That's only half the story. Sure, interoperability with proprietary software, formats and protocols made FOSS more visible, but consistent, principled opposition to them may have contributed to a growing trend towards open protocols and formats, and increased participation of developers in FOSS projects.

But it was not my point. My point is, it's not the FSF's job. It's like asking Greenpeace to engage in partnership with top polluters, or asking HRW to praise ruthless dictators from time to time.

Reply Score: 6

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

And yet, is exactly this "embracing" that has propelled FOSS into the mainstream.

No. Quite the opposite. What has propelled FOSS into the mainstream is large amounts of code going into various projects to the point where it achieves a level of quality that people take notice of. That's what counts.

There are certainly instances where you have to pay attention to what else will be interacting with your software, and pay attention to your licensing of libraries etc. However, it has been consistently proven that open source projects that follow an ideology of worrying about poprietary software interoperability, and having licenses to match, consistently fail to achieve the level of quality that proprietary developers expect and they fail to garner the hard code commits necessary.

Despite the FSF.

The reason why the FSF came to prominence is because Linux used the GPL, which is a FSF license, and the GPL happens to be a pretty good license and have a pretty good philosophy for maximising code going into projects.

Reply Score: 2

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

and the GPL happens to be a pretty good license and have a pretty good philosophy for maximising code going into projects

Ammong another pretty good damn liceses too.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Ammong another pretty good damn liceses too.

I know of no other license that has been as successful as the GPL at getting code committed to a project rather than another poorly maintained branch or in a proprietary extension, which is the point I was making.

The GPL is why Linux didn't disppear up its own backside via mistrust between contributors with a ton of disparate branches and proprietary driver extensions, which would have happened considering that a lot of companies contributing to Linux are competitors.

Reply Score: 1

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I know of no other license that has been as successful as the GPL at getting code committed to a project rather than another poorly maintained branch or in a proprietary extension, which is the point I was making.

That's because you've living under a rock lately.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Embrace prop...? What have you been reading? Where did anyone say that?

Perhaps you should read your own articles a bit more?

"This GNOME issue is about that. Many within the GNOME project believe that in order for the platform to survive and move forward, it needs to interoperate with proprietary software"

It would be nice if Gnome was attractive enough for people writing proprietary software to use first. ;-)

The biggest problem with doing that of course is that you end up completely diluting the open source part of your work and your message to the point where there is nothing left for people to listen to. It's kind of why Red Hat's strategy of open sourcing and preferably GPLing everything seems to work and why a company like Novell's 'both source' strategy is diluting their open source work whilst leaving legacy proprietary software as pointless irrelevancies no one uses.

Diluting the message that you give to the outside world, and the work you do, is a massive failure in any walk of life and in any industry.

Edited 2009-12-15 01:12 UTC

Reply Score: 4

BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

Oh boy, this is gonna be good. Time to start popping some corn, grab a beer, kick back and enjoy the drama!

Reply Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Going to be? It already is. It was obvious what was going to happen as soon as the article went up: plenty of FOSS bashing, plenty of frothing RMS hate, the same old arguments getting rehashed. The original point of the article being more or less lost.

We need some of the usual bunch of trolls and provocatours (I can't spell!) to start calling people Freetards and claiming FOSS projects have not accomplished no nothing never 'cept for giving people cancer and ending the world, and it'll all be pretty much typical. Because I don't think I've noticed anybody whip out "Freetard" yet this thread.

Reply Score: 5

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Because I don't think I've noticed anybody whip out "Freetard" yet this thread.

Has anyone seen Rockwell? I'm becoming a bit worried. Something may have happened to him. Or maybe he's simply decided to show up fashionably late... the little turd. ;-)

Edited 2009-12-14 20:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

It was obvious what was going to happen as soon as the article went up: plenty of FOSS bashing, plenty of frothing RMS hate, the same old arguments getting rehashed. The original point of the article being more or less lost.


Right. We need a simple summary document that enumerates all the possible opinions and viewpoints, so we could dismiss them simply as "see canned response 31.222".

Something like this:

http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

It might actually be fun to implement an osnews bot that scans for articles mentioning RMS, Mono, ..., and posts random gibberish. It might pass the turing test for quite a while.

Edited 2009-12-14 21:32 UTC

Reply Score: 5

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Going to be? It already is.


Oh it's barely even begun. Have the Freetards started threatening to fork GNOME yet?

Mark my words, this is the sort of "doctrinal schism" that people spend years bickering about.

Because I don't think I've noticed anybody whip out "Freetard" yet this thread.


Whoops, thanks for the reminder! That omission has been corrected.

Reply Score: 2

Stupid article
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 20:12 UTC
KugelKurt
Member since:
2005-07-06

It makes it sound that the issue just revolves around RMS.
Thom probably didn't even read the entire thread and just handpicked a few quotes he read on other recap stories by authors who actually read the whole thread.

There are many people involved in the discussion, including "Lefty" who holds a personal grudge against RMS and uses every opportunity to spread bad words about RMS.

I'm not agreeing with RMS on every level, but at least he commented about the political aspects and did not flame against specific people like Lefty does.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Stupid article
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:02 UTC in reply to "Stupid article"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

It makes it sound that the issue just revolves around RMS.


Not exclusively, but it does to a large degree. The thread was well established in discussing the question, but was for the most part civil and practical until RMS joined in. I agree that the matter was inflamed by the responses of Lefty and others, but I'd have to say the trigger was RMS calling for what amounted to censorship of developer's personal blogs. Because call it whatever you like, but that's what it amounted to - an insistence that Gnome-affiliated developers should not talk positively about proprietary software...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Stupid article
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Stupid article"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd have to say the trigger was RMS calling for what amounted to censorship of developer's personal blogs. Because call it whatever you like, but that's what it amounted to - an insistence that Gnome-affiliated developers should not talk positively about proprietary software...

You're wrong. It's not about censoring blogs or what they talk about.
It's about what content is aggregated on Planet GNOME. That's like a magazine not printing every letter they receive.

De Icaza is still free to drool in his fanaticism for MS software, but Planet GNOME is the wrong place for it, as much as mozillaZine feedHouse <http://feedhouse.mozillazine.org/ > is IMO the wrong place for "Postbox" posts.
I agree with RMS in this case, even though I had used slightly different words.

Edited 2009-12-14 21:20 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Stupid article
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stupid article"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

It's about what content is aggregated on Planet GNOME. That's like a magazine not printing every letter they receive.


Well, no. Planet GNOME isn't a magazine, with limited space, and with editors picking and choosing letters to publish. It's "a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors.", to quote from the site.

It's not there to provide news about GNOME, it's there to show what GNOME contributors are talking about. And if that includes proprietary software, so be it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Stupid article
by segedunum on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stupid article"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It's "a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors.", to quote from the site.

I'd like to know when some of those aggregated last committed any code to Gnome, or even so much as talked about what they were hacking on regarding Gnome in a blog post.

Planet Gnome has simply become a canvas for some very ex star Gnome hackers to paint pretty pictures with their own excrament and tell us what is in their fridge, possibly because there isn't anyone new to aggregate or anything else to talk about.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Stupid article
by YEPHENAS on Tue 15th Dec 2009 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stupid article"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

I'd like to know when some of those aggregated last committed any code to Gnome, or even so much as talked about what they were hacking on regarding Gnome in a blog post.

Once you're in you can stay as long as you want. From http://live.gnome.org/PlanetGnome :

"Q: I stopped contributing to GNOME two years ago. Can I still stay there?

A: Sure, no problem. We still love you ;) Past contributors often stay involved in areas that are of interest to GNOME (even if not directly related to GNOME), so we're not worried about the content of your blog."

Edited 2009-12-15 01:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Stupid article
by segedunum on Tue 15th Dec 2009 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stupid article"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually thought you'd made that Q and A up until I went and read it. Wow.

Well, there's the problem. If Planet Gnome diverges and largely isn't about Gnome or even open source software any more.........then what's the point of it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Stupid article
by rbenchley on Tue 15th Dec 2009 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stupid article"
rbenchley Member since:
2005-11-03

"It's "a window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors.", to quote from the site.

I'd like to know when some of those aggregated last committed any code to Gnome, or even so much as talked about what they were hacking on regarding Gnome in a blog post.

Planet Gnome has simply become a canvas for some very ex star Gnome hackers to paint pretty pictures with their own excrament and tell us what is in their fridge, possibly because there isn't anyone new to aggregate or anything else to talk about.
"
By that rationale RMS shouldn't be allowed to speak for the GNU project since it's been years since he's coded anything. Instead of producing actual code (which other project leaders like Linus and Theo still do) he gets to regale us with sexist jokes about women being relieved of their "Emacs virginity" and tell people to quit their jobs if proprietary software is involved (bold words from a man who hasn't had a paying job in years and lives off of grants and squats in other people's homes).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Stupid article
by segedunum on Tue 15th Dec 2009 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stupid article"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

By that rationale RMS shouldn't be allowed to speak for the GNU project since it's been years since he's coded anything.

Hmmmm, no. You're making crap and non-sensical comparisons here so you can talk about something else.

Planet Gnome is supposed to be an aggregation of blogs by Gnome hackers primarily and/or people doing things directly for Gnome such as marketing. Very few of those aggregated on Planet Gnome seem to be doing either of those two thing.

Reply Score: 2

Misunderstanding
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 20:57 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

RMS is right, but his solution is not viable.

As one of the commenters mentioned, Planet GNOME is oriented around people. If you are a GNOME hacker and you have a blog then all of your blog posts are aggregated on Planet GNOME. As such, to do what RMS wants you would have to
1) GNOME developers maintain a GNOME-specific blog
2) or, GNOME developers self censor what they talk about.

Neither of these is a reasonable solution.

Having some sort of loyalty test as a precondition to using Planet GNOME is not reasonable, fair or in spirit with the ideals of Free Software.

GNOME should not be used as a platform to promote non-Free software. However, Planet GNOME is not GNOME, but a window into the GNOME community. Individuals should not be coerced into particular behavior. They may be asked, but they may not be required.

Disassociating from GNU would be a mistake for GNOME and would have potentially huge impact on GNOME contributions, not even considering negative publicity. The potential is there, but I admit it could also have minimal impact on actual contributions. Regardless of actual impact on code the impact on apparent cohesion and the sense of viability and stability of Free software in general, and GNOME as a platform specifically, would certainly go down. This would negatively impact adoption of GNOME and Linux by people currently using non-Free software from stable companies.

The correct solution is technologically simple, socially acceptable and not burdensome to any parties. Most blogging software allows posts to be tagged; simply change the policy of Planet GNOME to only pull posts tagged GNOME.

A debate can then be had as to whether or not it should be required that posts tagged GNOME avoid mentioning non-Free software in a positive light.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Misunderstanding
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:28 UTC in reply to "Misunderstanding"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are a GNOME hacker and you have a blog then all of your blog posts are aggregated on Planet GNOME.

That's stupid. Every halfway decent blog software has a tagging feature with separate feeds for each tag.
What's so hard in aggregating only "GNOME" tagged posts?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Misunderstanding
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Misunderstanding"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

That's stupid. Every halfway decent blog software has a tagging feature with separate feeds for each tag.
What's so hard in aggregating only "GNOME" tagged posts?


Because Planet GNOME *isn't* about GNOME. It's about whatever GNOME contributors are saying on their blogs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Because Planet GNOME *isn't* about GNOME. It's about whatever GNOME contributors are saying on their blogs.

When was the last time De Icaza actually contributed anything to GNOME? He's currently vice president of some division. I doubt he does any coding anymore

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Misunderstanding
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Misunderstanding"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

When was the last time De Icaza actually contributed anything to GNOME? He's currently vice president of some division. I doubt he does any coding anymore


Granted, he's an odd case, not being all that involved in Gnome these days as far as I can see either. But the point still stands - PG isn't a news site talking about GNOME, it's the collective blogs of the people who contribute to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by Coxy on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Well if it's not about gnome why not just call it Blogger or wordpress...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Misunderstanding
by Delgarde on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:39 UTC in reply to "Misunderstanding"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

The correct solution is technologically simple, socially acceptable and not burdensome to any parties. Most blogging software allows posts to be tagged; simply change the policy of Planet GNOME to only pull posts tagged GNOME.


That was discussed on the mailing list, but the problem with that it changes the nature of Planet GNOME. Currently, it includes anything it's members want to say - about GNOME, about Free Software in general, about things happening in the wider industry, or even what they're having for dinner. Limiting it to GNOME-only excludes a lot of stuff that's still relevant - it might not be GNOME specific, but I'm still interesting in knowing, say, a GNOME developer's opinion of the latest KDE release.

Besides, discouraging people from speaking positively of proprietary software is stupid. If Microsoft have done good work with Windows 7, or with Silverlight, it's stupid to pretend they don't exist to avoid giving them publicity. Proprietary or not, they should be held up as examples, as inspiration for how open software could improve itself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Misunderstanding
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Misunderstanding"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

If Microsoft have done good work with Windows 7, or with Silverlight, it's stupid to pretend they don't exist to avoid giving them publicity. Proprietary or not, they should be held up as examples, as inspiration for how open software could improve itself.


Qt does pretty much everything what De Icaza was drooling about. Yet he only looks to proprietary MS software, even refusing to look at Qt which is FOSS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Misunderstanding
by Slambert666 on Tue 15th Dec 2009 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Misunderstanding"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Qt does pretty much everything.....


No it doesn't, in fact it pretty much does nothing of the stuff that Miguel is talking about.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Misunderstanding
by sorpigal on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Misunderstanding"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"The correct solution is technologically simple, socially acceptable and not burdensome to any parties. Most blogging software allows posts to be tagged; simply change the policy of Planet GNOME to only pull posts tagged GNOME.


That was discussed on the mailing list, but the problem with that it changes the nature of Planet GNOME. Currently, it includes anything it's members want to say - about GNOME, about Free Software in general, about things happening in the wider industry, or even what they're having for dinner. Limiting it to GNOME-only excludes a lot of stuff that's still relevant - it might not be GNOME specific, but I'm still interesting in knowing, say, a GNOME developer's opinion of the latest KDE release.
"

That's no problem, just make the tag "planetgnome." Any post which you think would be interesting to Planet GNOME can be so tagged.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Misunderstanding
by boldingd on Tue 15th Dec 2009 18:04 UTC in reply to "Misunderstanding"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

That is a remarkably reasonable analysis, and a good idea. Heh, maybe you should actually chip that in in the pertinent Newsgroup discussion?

Reply Score: 2

Hey !
by yujerik on Mon 14th Dec 2009 21:32 UTC
yujerik
Member since:
2009-12-14

Who wrote this crap ?
The FSF needs to change. It needs to face the new reality, i.e., one wherein most people (developers) within the F/OSS community recognise the necessity for interoperability and cooperation with established proprietary software vendors.

Who speaks in the name of developers from the F/OSS community ?
Worse, the sentence is misleading :
I can understand what is "cooperation with established proprietary software vendors", but can't understand what is "interoperability with established proprietary software vendors.".
Maybe some kind of implanted electronic interface, directly with their brain ?

Everyone can get involved in writing free code, but that doesn't mean F/OSS HAS TO interoperate with proprietary software in order to survive. If you say it, prove it also.

Really, this article is a piece of junk, written to inspire FUD, without even assuming the responsability of the said words...
I am so sad OSNews relay more and more articles of this kind.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hey !
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 22:53 UTC in reply to "Hey !"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Really, this article is a piece of junk, written to inspire FUD, without even assuming the responsability of the said words...
I am so sad OSNews relay more and more articles of this kind.

At first I also thought that the article is stupid. Now I'm more amused about it.
I'm amused how grown up and wise Thom believes to be. No way he could hold a candle in a discussion against highly educated "radicals" like Eben Moglen or RMS.
Heck, Thom obviously has no idea what "radical" even means. It is derived from the Latin word for root. So basically everyone is a radical who identifies a root problem somewhere.
The Free Software movement identified a basic root problem: Proprietary software excludes people and exclusion is bad.

Edited 2009-12-14 22:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hey !
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey !"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is what your argument boils down to? Attack the messenger?

Dude, this discussion alone, as well as the countless number of ACTUAL DEVELOPERS out there who dislike RMS and his antics should be evidence enough that his time as a leader has gone.

You may disagree with that, and that's fine - but don't make it out to be as if I'm some sort of oddbal, the only one presenting the above opinion. I can assure you - it is you who is part of the minority, not me.

And please don't start going elitist on my ass with Latin - you won't win, and it serves no purpose. Latin is but one of many languages in my curriculum.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hey !
by KugelKurt on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hey !"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

Dude, this discussion alone, as well as the countless number of ACTUAL DEVELOPERS out there who dislike RMS and his antics should be evidence enough that his time as a leader has gone.

Oh, you counted each sender in said mailing list thread or are you just guessing that there were more "pro Icaza" senders than "contra Icaza" ones?

You may disagree with that, and that's fine - but don't make it out to be as if I'm some sort of oddbal, the only one presenting the above opinion.

You claim that Free Software needs to "grow up" to advance further. Yet you have given no proof at all that the "radical" view is the childish one and not De Icaza's drooling (his own word) or Lefty's personal attacks against RMS.


I can assure you - it is you who is part of the minority, not me.

Then give me proof. You in your great wisdom obviously have the proof somewhere. So show it to me that drooling over Silverlight and other "grown up" actions advance Free Software further than a "radical" approach.

Amusingly, it is KDE which embraces the Freedom aspect further and further (after using non-free Qt versions in the beginning). It's KDE that adopted the "more free" GPLv3. It's KDE e.V. that shares offices with FSF's European branch.
From within the KDE you'll read words like http://www.purinchu.net/wp/2009/12/12/gnome-slashdot/ and http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/4119
Despite your claim that a "radical" view hurts a FOSS project in a "grown up" world, KDE SC makes great advancements every six months.

Edited 2009-12-14 23:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hey !
by Ed W. Cogburn on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hey !"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

Dude, this discussion alone, as well as the countless number of ACTUAL DEVELOPERS out there who dislike RMS and his antics should be evidence enough that his time as a leader has gone.


There is no single 'leader' of the FOSS world, for obvious reasons, nor has RMS ever claimed to be such. He *is* the leader of the FSF, that's all.

As other posters have already said, the FOSS movement has grown rapidly, so there are relatively fewer folks who agree with everything he says.

Its only the folks who disagree with him so much that feel the need to point out he's no longer represents the entirety (or even the majority) of the FOSS movement, but of course, he never was their 'leader' to begin with.

And the simple fact of the continuing existence of the FSF means his time as a leader has not gone at all. If that really bothers you so much, then just stop posting articles about RMS's latest comments. After all, its the attention that *you* are giving him that makes him a leader (of something) in the eyes of many.

Ironically, the mere fact that you feel the need to post about what RMS is doing, suggests his 'time as a leader' is far from over yet...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hey !
by shawnjgoff on Mon 14th Dec 2009 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey !"
shawnjgoff Member since:
2008-05-02

Your logic is impeccable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hey !
by Junius on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey !"
Junius Member since:
2009-10-25

[q]Thom obviously has no idea what "radical" even means. It is derived from the Latin word for root. So basically everyone is a radical who identifies a root problem somewhere.


I'm sorry I don't understand your point here. Etymologically speaking you could say a pencil is a little penis; does that mean I'm currently doodling with a penis? As interesting as etymology is it should be by no means used as a determinant for definition.

Please correct me if I have missed the point.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hey !
by Slambert666 on Tue 15th Dec 2009 04:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey !"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

No way he could hold a candle in a discussion against highly educated "radicals" like Eben Moglen or RMS.
Heck, Thom obviously has no idea what "radical" even means. It is derived from the Latin word for root. So basically everyone is a radical who identifies a root problem somewhere.


Funny....
I think you believe that saying crazy stuff like this furthers the cause of the FSF, when in fact it does the exact opposite. Normal people reading your comment will conclude that FSF and there supporters are lunatics hence by association that there cause is not sane.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hey !
by Luminair on Tue 15th Dec 2009 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey !"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

YES USE LANGUAGE AGAINST A LANGUAGE NERD THATS THE WAY

Reply Score: 3

198 comments at time of posting!
by Cody Evans on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:04 UTC
Cody Evans
Member since:
2009-08-14

I this article going to set a OSNews record for number of comments?

Reply Score: 1

thebishop
Member since:
2009-12-14

"At some point, movements and organisations need to grow up..."

I hate this point of view.

Free Software was created for real, practical reasons. Despite the great achievements of Gnu, Linux, and the rest, in many ways the landscape of software freedom is worse than ever. The rise of DRM, blackbox narrow-purpose devices, and web applications threaten the personal privacy and security of citizens like never before. Tech bloggers, and unfortunately contributers to this site often treat the "4 Freedoms" as some utopian (vaguely leftist hippie) ideology. In fact they are the minimum conditions required to guarantee that your CPU is doing what you expect.

A fitting analogy is the Bill of Rights. Just as the first 10 amendments are designed to counter autocracy Free Software (including all free licenses) prevents software vendors from taking (malicious or not) control of a user's PC. Would Thom (?, the author isn't clear) suggest that Americans need to "Grow Up" with respect to the Bill of Rights? I hope not.

If a majority thinks it's naive or childish to want to know what your computer is doing, that's a sad comment on the hopeless dis-empowering effect of consumer identity.

How many times do we have to read (on this site no less) about the latest Rootkit hiding on an Audio CD or Securom "Release Date Check" that screws up your system configuration, or social media using our personal data for malicious ends before we realize the value of Free Software?

All this being said, I find myself in complete disagreement with Richard Stallman on the issue of PlanetGnome's blog content. While it makes sense in principle that a site representing GNU should not be a soapbox for proprietary software, in practice it's pretty gross to censor personal blogs from people working to make Gnome better. As important as Free Software is, it's unreasonable to demand that every coder on the project be in ideological lockstep. The hackers working on Gnome perform a valuable service to humanity (no hyperbole). I think they deserve editorial control over their blogs.

Perhaps it's the web-based software project called "PlanetGnome.org" which needs to disassociate from the Free Software Foundation, not Gnome itself.

- theBishop

Edited 2009-12-15 00:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

A fitting analogy is the Bill of Rights. Just as the first 10 amendments are designed to counter autocracy Free Software (including all free licenses) prevents software vendors from taking (malicious or not) control of a user's PC. Would Thom (?, the author isn't clear) suggest that Americans need to "Grow Up" with respect to the Bill of Rights? I hope not.

The fact that you even draw a comparison between Free Software and the Bill of Rights is patently absurd. Access to source code is not a human right. It's not even a civil right. At best, as google_ninja mentioned earlier, it is a consumer right.

If Stallman had argued for Free Software from the basis of consumer rights in the first place, his followers wouldn't be as fervent, but they would be more numerous and the discussions would certainly be more rational.

Reply Score: 2

thebishop Member since:
2009-12-14

I'm not saying free software is a human right or that free licenses are equally weighted in terms of historical or any other significance.

Both documents (1) identify a fundamental problem (2) identify the components of the problem and (3) establish a framework to nullify those components.

Both documents attempt to solve this problem as simply and methodically as possible. Although I'd listen to copyleft as a counter-example, copyleft is not a mandatory attribute of a Free software license.

My point being that any attempt to water down these documents compromises it's objective. What's democracy without a free press, for example? Likewise, software that doesn't grant the right to modify it's code cannot be changed if it's found to perform unadvertised functions, and is therefore not free.

This is not a "radical" or utopian issue. The FSF may have political ideology that goes beyond software, but the GPL is a deeply pragmatic document. I resent being told to "Grow Up" on an issue of personal privacy and protection.

Reply Score: 1

cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

I appreciate your comparison of the GPL to the Bill of Rights as a document of purpose that attempts to solve a problem. But there is a fundamental difference. The Bill of Rights is effectively a document that the people have established to reserve certain rights and protections from a governing body composed of themselves. It is a contract among a group of people with shared interests. A software license, in contrast, is essentially a contract between two parties who often have differing interests. In a democratic government, the people grant rights and privileges to the governing body. Through a software license, the developer grants rights and privileges to the user. The GPL may appear to be a user empowering license, but the ultimate choice of whether or not to use the GPL still belongs to the developer.

I do agree that the GPL is a deeply pragmatic document, but I would argue that the FSF does more to dilute the value of the GPL than anything or anyone else possibly could because it wraps the license in its own political ideology. If the GPL were presented as a tool, and not as a weapon against proprietary software, the controversy around it would evaporate and it could be judged on its merits as a software license. In that case, I believe it could achieve the same goals without causing an ideological rift which does not belong in the software world in the first place.

In my view, the call to "grow up" is not directed at those who prefer to use only Free Software, but at ideologues such as Stallman who decry the very existence of proprietary software. Those who plug their ears and cover their eyes and pretend like proprietary software doesn't exist are acting in an immature manner. Those who demand that others do the same, as Stallman has done in this case, are acting in ways that are entirely antithetical to the concept of freedom.

A democracy that attempts to censor the discussion of alternatives is not a democracy at all.

Reply Score: 2

Sweet, sweet irony
by cb_osn on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:08 UTC
cb_osn
Member since:
2006-02-26

It is truly ironic that Mono has been such a thorn in the side of the FSF given that the whole GNU project was founded based on the goal of creating a free and open implementation of a proprietary system.

Reply Score: 5

Where's the Problem?
by segedunum on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:41 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Basically, what happened was that some people were questioning a lot of posts on Planet Gnome and Stallman chimed in and said he didn't think they should be supporting and talking about non-free software there.

Given that a lot of what I see on Planet Gnome is not Gnome related at all, is about Mono, .Net, Silverlight or something related to it, or VMware, and are posts from people who haven't committed any hard code to Gnome for years (they get aggregated because of reputation) I think people are entitled to ask what's going on. I'm also not the slightest bit interested in what you had for f--king lunch yesterday either, which is seemingly what Planet Gnome started to descend into years ago. Where's the excitement over Gnome 3 and the ideas? Where's the real work? All I see is bickering over philosophical issues like this.

It's just another in a long line of happenings around Gnome that are just sliding it further and further into irrelevancy. The politics and flamewars about Novell, Mono and Microsoft from both sides have to be seen to be believed. I know we all have a view on that but it's got nothing on these people.

Incidentally, a proposed split from the GNU actually admits that Stallman is right in this case.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Where's the Problem?
by Hiev on Tue 15th Dec 2009 00:53 UTC in reply to "Where's the Problem?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

It's just another in a long line of happenings around Gnome that are just sliding it further and further into irrelevancy.

That may be your opinion, But that the fact some of its developers are thinking to drop GNU may be atractive for some, making more relevant to them. I think the one getting more irrelevant every day is RMS.

Edited 2009-12-15 01:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where's the Problem?
by lemur2 on Tue 15th Dec 2009 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's the Problem?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It's just another in a long line of happenings around Gnome that are just sliding it further and further into irrelevancy. That may be your opinion, But that the fact some of its developers drop GNU may be atractive for some, making more relevant to them. I think the one getting more irrelevant every day is RMS.


While one can drop GNU, one can't really "take back" Free Software and make it proprietary.

If you have written all of the code, then you own the copyrights, and you can certainly release the next version of your code as closed software (or under any kind of license you please), but that won't stop the current version from being "out there", and able to be further improved by collaboration and co-operation amongst the Free Sofwatre community.

A good example is the Linksys WRT54G.

In one of their routers, Linksys used Free Software (this was claimed by Linksys to be accidental). That wasn't Linksys's software to use, it was Free Software, Linksys didn't write it. The original authors complained, and it turned out that Linksys had written so little of the software in the WRT54G router that it was easier to just publish the source code (in compliance with the software's license) than to re-write it all as Linksys's own original software.

Because the source code was available, the WRT54G router from Linksys became an open router.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G
The WRT54G is notable for being the first consumer-level network device that had its firmware source code released to satisfy the obligations of the GNU GPL. This allows programmers to modify the firmware to change or add functionality to the device. Several third-party firmware projects provide the public with enhanced firmware for the WRT54G.


This router became the best-selling router of the time, it was HUGELY popular, and it spawned a whole raft of later models. Only the later models which also featured open source code were in any way popular or notably successful.

Because it was a Free Software router, other projects sprung up to improve upon the original source code.
After Linksys was required to release the WRT54G's firmware source code under terms of the GNU General Public License, there have been many third party projects enhancing that code as well as some entirely new projects using the hardware in these devices. Three of the most widely used are DD-WRT, Tomato and OpenWRT.


Ironically, although Linksys didn't own the code, and they had lost control of the WRT54G's code, and there was now competing software for the WRT54G ... Linksys still sold the WRT54G unit itself in huge numbers.

The ongoing business value turned out to be in the open-ness the router and copy-left of the code, and not in any proprieatry software solutions (as used in other Linksys routers) after all.

RMS's concept of Free Software is not at all irrelevant. As more people come to understand it, it becomes more relevant every day.

Edited 2009-12-15 01:14 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Where's the Problem?
by Hiev on Tue 15th Dec 2009 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's the Problem?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

While one can drop GNU, one can't really "take back" Free Software and make it proprietary

Wow wow wow, Where exactly did I claimed the contrary? stop overanalising everything.

RMS's concept of Free Software is not at all irrelevant

Another missreading, I said RMS, not RMS concept.

At least read damn it.

Edited 2009-12-15 01:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where's the Problem?
by segedunum on Tue 15th Dec 2009 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's the Problem?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

But that the fact some of its developers are thinking to drop GNU may be atractive for some, making more relevant to them.

Gnome hasn't exactly been the most committed GNU project over the years. Most of those involved at its inception are now those same people working for various companies doing lots of non-Gnome related things, so I fail to see how a split from the GNU achieves anything for Gnome at all. It's merely a way of officially saying 'business as usual'.

I think the one getting more irrelevant every day is RMS.

On this occasion, not when you see a very long line of blog posts on Planet Gnome that have nothing to do with Gnome.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Where's the Problem?
by Hiev on Tue 15th Dec 2009 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's the Problem?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Gnome hasn't exactly been the most committed GNU project over the years

A good reason to decouple it from GNU w/o to much drama.

Reply Score: 2

obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

Another possible topic of discussion is the influence of the various Free Software licenses, in particular the GPL (given that it is so common).

Does the huge dominance of the GPL (or, for that matter, any non-P.D. license) have a "stifling" effect on development? By that, I mean that licensed code can't be used for P.D. projects. If you want to do a public-domain project and search for code to learn from and use, there is (at present) not much P.D.
code out there.

P.D. code is unique in that it is the *only* code that can be used absolutely anywhere - no strings attached. No having to "re-invent the wheel" to do a particular thing - if you want to do something and there is P.D. code for it, then problem solved.

Once a Free Software app has been given a particular license (GPL or something else), should it stay with that license for ever, or should the devs look at releasing it as "public domain" after "x" number of years?

I'm a big fan of P.D. software and am working on a number of P.D. apps myself. I believe that an increase in the number of public-domain apps would be of benefit to Free Software, as it just seems like there's too much of a GPL dominance at present. I think that the GPL does have its place, but so does P.D. , and that could be used for much more software than it is at present.

I think that because the GPL is so commonly used, and has so much mindshare, it is almost an automatic "reflex" choice when a license is chosen for a project, and P.D. doesn't even get a look-in.

( Sigh.... maybe P.D. is so rarely used because giving away software as P.D. means that you don't care how it is used - even if others take credit for it - and therefore you can't have an ego. Maybe there just aren't that many people like that around.... ;) )

Edited 2009-12-15 01:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Another possible topic of discussion is the influence of the various Free Software licenses, in particular the GPL (given that it is so common). Does the huge dominance of the GPL have a "stifling" effect on development? Once a Free Software app has been given a particular license (GPL or something else), should it stay with that license for ever, or should the devs look at releasing it as "public domain" after "x" number of years? I'm a big fan of P.D. software and am working on a number of P.D. apps myself. I believe that an increase in the number of public-domain apps would be of benefit to Free Software, as it just seems like there's too much of a GPL dominance at present. I think that the GPL does have its place, but so does P.D. , and that could be used for much more software than it is at present. I think that because the GPL is so commonly used, and has so much mindshare, it is almost an automatic "reflex" choice when a license is chosen for a project, and P.D. doesn't even get a look-in. ( Sigh.... maybe P.D. is so rarely used because giving away software as P.D. means that you don't care how it is used - even if others take credit for it - and therefore you can't have an ego. Maybe there just aren't that many people like that around.... ;) )


P.D. software can be taken by a proprietary interest and sold to other people downstream. The proprieatry interest can take the work of the original author and profit from it, and the other "downstream" customers endure costs they should not have to. How is any of that fair? It makes patsies out of the original author and the downstream customers of the company that ripped off the P.D. software.

Reply Score: 2

obsidian Member since:
2007-05-12


P.D. software can be taken by a proprietary interest and sold to other people downstream. The proprieatry interest can take the work of the original author and profit from it, and the other "downstream" customers endure costs they should not have to. How is any of that fair? It makes patsies out of the original author and the downstream customers of the company that ripped off the P.D. software.

Hi - thanks for your comment!
Agreed - what you say is indeed true (that a company can take P.D. software and profit from it, unknown to that company's customers). I guess that the best way for any customers to avoid that would be to do some research around the 'net (to make sure that what they are about to be charged for isn't already available for free.). And granted, not everyone or every company has the time to do that.
For myself, all I can say is that when my apps are ready, I'll just be happy to see them used, whereever they're used. Having come across some neat P.D. software over the years, all I want to do is add a bit more.... ;)

Reply Score: 3

pjafrombbay
Member since:
2005-07-31

RMS replied, stating that GNOME should not provide a platform for the promotion of non-Free software. "They should not [talk about VMware], unless VmWare becomes free software. GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing," he states, "Perhaps the statement of Planet GNOME's philosophy should be interpreted differently. It should not invite people to talk about their proprietary software projects just because they are also GNOME contributors."

The executive director of the GNOME Foundation, Stormy Peters, thought this was ridiculous.


I am appalled at Stallman's views but not surprised. Peters is correct. These type of views might have been Ok when FOSS was for hobbyists but its mainstream these days. Many FOSS projects would simply die if "for profit" (wash your mouth out :-) ) organisations withdrew their support. Look at the difference between OOo and Abi Word! Tell me Stallman; which one do you think is the better?

Its about time we all moved on from this sillyness.

Regards,
Peter

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Many FOSS projects would simply die if "for profit" (wash your mouth out :-) ) organisations withdrew their support. Look at the difference between OOo and Abi Word! Tell me Stallman; which one do you think is the better?


Software Freedom has nothing to do with chraging money for software.

The GPL explicitly allows for charging for copies of the software. It also makes absolutely no mention of other ways of making money from the software ... hence Red Hat's business model, and Mozilla's business model.

"Free Software" is not about the cost of the software, it is all about the freedom of the code and the freedom of people's acess to that source code.

You are confusing "Freedom" and "Free Software" with "Zero cost". You are probably doing this intentionally.

Edited 2009-12-15 03:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

...Software Freedom has nothing to do with chraging money for software.

The GPL explicitly allows for charging for copies of the software. It also makes absolutely no mention of other ways of making money from the software ... hence Red Hat's business model, and Mozilla's business model.

"Free Software" is not about the cost of the software, it is all about the freedom of the code and the freedom of people's acess to that source code.

You are confusing "Freedom" and "Free Software" with "Zero cost". You are probably doing this intentionally.


I know exactly what I meant and am not confusing anything. The point I was making is that many organisations (Sun Microsystems for example with OOo and IBM for Ubuntu) provide a great deal of resources to FOSS projects. Without these contributions many of the more successful FOSS projects either would not exist or would not be as good a product as they are.

I believe that the mis-guided "purity" of no commercial input to FOSS projects is just muddle-headed.

Regards,
Peter

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"...Software Freedom has nothing to do with chraging money for software.

The GPL explicitly allows for charging for copies of the software. It also makes absolutely no mention of other ways of making money from the software ... hence Red Hat's business model, and Mozilla's business model.

"Free Software" is not about the cost of the software, it is all about the freedom of the code and the freedom of people's acess to that source code.

You are confusing "Freedom" and "Free Software" with "Zero cost". You are probably doing this intentionally.


I know exactly what I meant and am not confusing anything. The point I was making is that many organisations (Sun Microsystems for example with OOo and IBM for Ubuntu) provide a great deal of resources to FOSS projects. Without these contributions many of the more successful FOSS projects either would not exist or would not be as good a product as they are.

I believe that the mis-guided "purity" of no commercial input to FOSS projects is just muddle-headed.

Regards,
Peter
"

Well, why don't we go to the original source? The entire aim, the origin of the whole concept, if you will.

It is documented here:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html

The GNU Manifesto (which appears below) was written by Richard Stallman at the beginning of the GNU Project, to ask for participation and support. For the first few years, it was updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now it seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it.

Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. Footnotes added since 1993 help clarify these points.


The original motivation is clear:
Why I Must Write GNU

I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done for me against my will.

So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away (2a).


But there is a lot of confusion about that word "free". In the quote above, it appears to be used both ways.

Are there any other clues?
How GNU Will Be Available

GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.


Well, the fact that GNU is meant to be totally non-proprietary software is perfectly clear, that message comes through very strongly. But what was meant by "free"?

The footnotes, added later, provide the clarification we seek:
# The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody would have to pay for permission to use the GNU system. But the words don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge. That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a profit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between “free” in the sense of freedom and “free” in the sense of price. Free software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to obtain copies—and if the funds help support improving the software, so much the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it.
# This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between the two different meanings of “free”. The statement as it stands is not false—you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea.
# The expression ``give away'' is another indication that I had not yet clearly separated the issue of price from that of freedom. We now recommend avoiding this expression when talking about free software. See "Confusing Words and Phrases" for more explanation.


There is nothing at all wrong with companies contributing help, distributing the software, and charging for it via whatever business model they see fit. The important thing is that the source code remains open. That was what was meant by "free". It was so right at the start, it is just as true now, and it will always be true.

The "Free" of Free Software does not mean zero cost. It does not mean no commercial involvement. It never has meant that. What it means is ... no closed-source. No secret software. Everything open, or not included. No compromises on that.

"Free" Software means open software. Open source software. Freedom to change and improve it. Forever.

Edited 2009-12-16 08:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by marafaka
by marafaka on Tue 15th Dec 2009 11:11 UTC
marafaka
Member since:
2006-01-03

Thom said: "At some point, movements and organisations need to grow up."

Yeah, how much do you pay for taking this view, old guy?

Reply Score: 1